Looks like someone enjoyed her time in jail

Homicidal_Squirrel · Sep 14, 2015

She seems ready to go back. She was already sent to jail for violating the law. Now she wants to violate it again. Listening to her speech made me laugh, especially her complaint that others aren't being "tolerant" of her beliefs. :erm:

billd91 · Sep 14, 2015

I think the question has to be asked, if a license is filled out properly, fees are paid, and the couple seeking the license are legally allowed to marry... does she even have the authority to not authorize the license? If she doesn't have any defined discretion, her authority is a rubber stamp and always was. Her whole refusal and everything along with it is just stupid political pageantry.

Dioltach · Sep 14, 2015

I seem to remember reading when she was originally released that her staff were specifically instructed by the court that they could issue the licences without needing her say-so.

tomBitonti · Sep 14, 2015

What messes up my analysis of this issue is that the clerk has an elected position. She isn't just a hired administrator. Since the legislative district has chosen to place an elected official in the post, that seems to grant additional options to the official. That is, if the voters decide that they want a clerk who does not issue licenses, even though that seems to be a disservice, they are getting what they voted for.

If those voters then decide that they don't want the clerk, then there should be an official process to remove her from office.

Also, I would expect there to be a stated minimum standard to which the state can avail itself to remove the clerk, and that citizens could sue the state to force it to effect a removal based on that standard.

That is, if the clerk just decided (for no reason other than laziness) to not bother to show up to work, the state presumably would have a process to remove the clerk for failing to do the minimum necessary work.

Thx!

TomB

Hand of Evil · Sep 14, 2015

Just create a stamp, "approved by the office" as she does not want to put her name on the documents but as an elected official, she has an obligation to follow the rules. It is not just equal rights but also separation of church and state.

Umbran · Sep 14, 2015

Dioltach said:
I seem to remember reading when she was originally released that her staff were specifically instructed by the court that they could issue the licences without needing her say-so.

My understanding is thus: She has the authority to delegate her deputies to issue licenses. Originally, she was not issuing them, and also not allowing her deputies to issue them. She was released under the agreement that she would allow her deputies to do so (this is called "accommodation" and it is required by law that the employer at least try to give reasonable accommodation so long as it doesn't cost too much). She agreed.

Then, there have been rumors that she would renege on that, as the licenses have *her* name on it, and she claims she cannot in conscience issue the license with her name on it. The Governor has (again, if I recall correctly) stated that he does not personally have the authority to change the form requirements - it requires the legislature to do that, and the legislature is not in session at the moment.

Morrus · Sep 14, 2015

So obnoxious. Forget the legality of it - what about basic human decency? Is that no longer a Christian value?

Umbran · Sep 14, 2015

tomBitonti said:
What messes up my analysis of this issue is that the clerk has an elected position. She isn't just a hired administrator. Since the legislative district has chosen to place an elected official in the post, that seems to grant additional options to the official. That is, if the voters decide that they want a clerk who does not issue licenses, even though that seems to be a disservice, they are getting what they voted for.

If those voters then decide that they don't want the clerk, then there should be an official process to remove her from office.

Actually, the legislature of the State can remove her from office. An informal poll of the legislature has, to my understanding, shown that they already would have removed her from office, if they'd been in session, but this has all gone on while they were officially off for the summer. Calling back into a special session is an expenditure of several hundred thousand dollars.

Once they are in session, her continued position is likely question. I have heard many of the State legislators are mightily cheesed off that she's making the State look like bumpkins.

billd91 · Sep 14, 2015

Morrus said:
So obnoxious. Forget the legality of it - what about basic human decency? Is that no longer a Christian value?

Given a fairly bloody history, was it ever? Certainly not as we conceive of basic human decency today.

Janx · Sep 14, 2015

Morrus said:
So obnoxious. Forget the legality of it - what about basic human decency? Is that no longer a Christian value?

I recall hearing of the ancient British tradition of Resigning in Protest (on NPR, so blame them for stereotyping you guys and me for spelling it wrong).

It seems like that would have been the proper way for her to show her objection to the Supreme Court order.

Based on other info about her, instead this is just more data-points in the bucket that she is a low class, hate mongering nepotist.

Looks like someone enjoyed her time in jail

Homicidal_Squirrel

Adventurer

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)

Dioltach

Legend

tomBitonti

Adventurer

Hand of Evil

Hero

Umbran

Mod Squad

Morrus

Well, that was fun

Umbran

Mod Squad

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)

Janx

Hero

Similar Threads