So, we can arrest Kim Davis now, right?

Julio3000 said:
I do see this point, as well. I'm a little queasy at the invocation of Dred Scott when what's at issue is some kind of official sanction for otherwise illegal discrimination, not human chattel.
Click to expand...

That she didn't want to be discriminatory in her dissent seems to be evidenced in the fact that she stopped signing any licenses, fwiw.
 
BedellBrave said:
What do you make of her offer to sign as clerk, rather than with her name? Are you saying that you think that offer was exclusively made after her arrest?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. What I'm saying is that she probably wanted the confrontation.

One would think there would be a public record of a request made by her--as a government official--to whomever that would have outlined both her objections and a suggested route to fulfill the law in spite of her objections. Usually government has to keep minutes on things like this unless Kentucky does not have an open meeting law.
 
BedellBrave said:
In our legal tradition of handling these accommodation requests, it isn't/hasn't been really the purview of the court to determine the reasonableness of the person's scruple - that's a dangerous place for gov't to go (i.e., becoming the judge of conscience and religious reasoning). Rather, the role is to determine whether it places an undue burden on the employer/agency (i.e., can the request be reasonably accommodated). That answer seems clear in this case to me.
Click to expand...

Well that's true and I haven't really thought about it that way. But at the same time I'm just not convinced that Davis is willing to find a reasonable compromise now that the whole thing has become a circus. The cynical part of me just thinks that maybe Davis did this because she wanted her 15 minutes. I can't shake that feeling.
 
weso1 said:
Well that's true and I haven't really thought about it that way. But at the same time I'm just not convinced that Davis is willing to find a reasonable compromise now that the whole thing has become a circus. The cynical part of me just thinks that maybe Davis did this because she wanted her 15 minutes. I can't shake that feeling.
Click to expand...

Hardly the cynical thing to think. She wanted to be on the cross. Especially given that there are 20 people running for the republican ticket she could vouch for a few of them to show up and sure enough, it happened.
 
Julio3000 said:
But, way to gloss over the point. Trying to make this into dissent against Dred Scott just makes one look kinda small and sad.
Click to expand...

Okay. I'll take small and sad. I've been called worse. When it comes to just the main point that law and SCOTUS can be wrong it seems to be spot on. The argument is that we must, imo, allow for dissent, for the very reason that law and SCOTUS ruling can be most certainly be wrong unless you've got a whacked out ethic.
 
Maybe I just need to write off every such conscientious objector as in it for the money or fame. Or at least when they object on a point that I'm for or they don't look like me and the folks I hang with...
 
Well Beds, you already control both chambers of Congress, if you get the Presidency next year you can make a Constitutional Amendment to overturn SCOTUS, just like the 14th Amendment and Dred Scott decision.
 
The Don said:
Well Beds, you already control both chambers of Congress, if you get the Presidency next year you can make a Constitutional Amendment to overturn SCOTUS, just like the 14th Amendment and Dred Scott decision.
Click to expand...

You know as well as I do, there is no going back, even if one wanted to - I'm looking forward and just hoping that this nation will allow for those who hold the view that the President did just a few years ago to have a place in public life and discourse.
 
BedellBrave said:
Maybe I just need to write off every such conscientious objector as in it for the money or fame. Or at least when they object on a point that I'm for or they don't look like me and the folks I hang with...
Click to expand...

I'm personally just using my instincts here. I respect the position of the wedding cake company for example, as I think they had an honest conundrum. I'm a big believer in the idea of religious freedom, but I just am cynical of having Davis essentially be our spokesperson on this one.
 
BedellBrave said:
You know as well as I do, there is no going back, even if one wanted to - I'm looking forward and just hoping that this nation will allow for those who hold the view that the President did just a few years ago to have a place in public life and discourse.
Click to expand...

Call Obama a liar if you want, he's always been pro same-sex marriage (as evidenced by the survey he filled in Illinois in the 90's).

It would have been stupid of him to lose votes in 2008 for endorsing SSM. By 2012 the country was more ready and politically it was not going to backfire on him to endorse it.

"1996 – SUPPORTS MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Then Illinois Senate candidate Obama submitted a survey to a newspaper called Outlines saying, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” (Read the documents here.)"
Click to expand...

Nearly every GOP candidate on the debate stage other than Jeb has admitted maybe we probably shouldn't have gone into Iraq. Goes to show you how one fringe topic could sway public opinion so easily. Jeb is forever linked to Iraq even if he had no direct influence on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top