The Great Controversy -- or Is It Really?

[Grishnakh]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

For those looking for a succinct explanation, here is a quote from WH Press Secretary John Earnest:

“Every public official is subject to the rule of law,” Mr. Earnest said. “No one is above the law. That applies to the president of the United States and it applies to the clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, as well.”

LINK

I totally agree with this. However, isn't a core issue the fact that she probably believes that Gods law overrules the law of man? That her belief in God and his teaching/law is above any law that man might create?

The other insight I might be able to provide having grown up in that area of the country is that she is part of what we called the good old boy system. People in positions of government help their friends and families get into positions of government. Plus they all agree on the way life, religion, and politics should work. Call it a whole community of yes men. She was probably very much appalled that people in her community would think otherwise. She stuck to her beliefs thinking that others would follow suit. However, in this case things escalated beyond anything she could have imagined. Then she was kinda caught moving forward and had to stick to her guns.

[Dragon Ruler]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

It is not the clerk's place to set policy. Whether it is discrimination or not is completely irrelevant. It is not given to her to make that decision to withhold marriage licenses from anyone, nor is it given to her to disregard a court order.

It is a battle over jurisdiction, as you say. She has far, far overreached her own, and now she is getting a civics lesson.

Hopefully she will appeal the contempt on a jurisdictional basis. The lack of discrimination as well as to my knowledge the lack of a federal law being violated may get her out. The feds have no business in this matter that I can see. That to me is the interesting legal issue here.

[Dad_Scaper]

I see I erred in responding to you. My mistake.

Edit: *sigh* she is not in jail for committing a crime. She is in jail for contempt of court. As dumb as this all is, I have actually explained it in the last couple of pages. Did you read my posts? Or does your understanding of these matters arise from somewhere else?

Edit 2: @ grish~ her opinion about god's law is irrelevant to her discharge of her duties as a clerk. If she thinks her compliance with her professional duties is impossible, she may quit. People do it all the time.

[Dragon Ruler]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

I see I erred in responding to you. My mistake.

Edit: *sigh* she is not in jail for committing a crime. She is in jail for contempt of court. As dumb as this all is, I have actually explained it in the last couple of pages. Did you read my posts? Or does your understanding of these matters arise from somewhere else?

Edit 2: @ grish~ her opinion about god's law is irrelevant to her discharge of her duties as a clerk. If she thinks her compliance with her professional duties is impossible, she may quit. People do it all the time.

Is this first edit in reply to my post? If so, as I mentioned in my post, it is the contempt finding that she should appeal. What legal right does a federal court judge have to throw a Kentucky clerk in jail, when she should never have been in federal court in the first place. Maybe I'm missing something, but with no jurisdiction....

[Grishnakh]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Edit 2: @ grish~ her opinion about god's law is irrelevant to her discharge of her duties as a clerk. If she thinks her compliance with her professional duties is impossible, she may quit. People do it all the time.

Oh I totally get that, and agree 100%. I'm just an amateur psychologist and enjoy trying to understand what could possibly be going through her mind.

That and I wonder if she placed her hand on a bible when she took the oath of office to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. it's all ----ed up if you ask me.

[Dragon Ruler]

Originally Posted by Dragon Ruler

Is this first edit in reply to my post? If so, as I mentioned in my post, it is the contempt finding that she should appeal. What legal right does a federal court judge have to throw a Kentucky clerk in jail, when she should never have been in federal court in the first place. Maybe I'm missing something, but with no jurisdiction....

edit -- further to my reply I mention the lack of a federal crime only to show the lack of jurisdiction -- if there was a federal crime (and I have not seen mention of one) there would be jurisdiction

[Dad_Scaper]

Oh, I'm sure in her own mind she is a righteous crusader. I don't really care what her opinion is, though. Why should I? She is far away and appears to be both stupid and disagreeable. Others, closer to her and positioned to do so, must bear the burden of dealing with this tempest in a teapot. Once, in a professional capacity I had to deal with some sovereign citizens. I would never do so again, if I can avoid it. Sometimes it's just impossible to have a civilized conversation, explaining things to people.

Edit: ~ dr ~ consider the possibility that you don't know what you're talking about, throwing around these words. She was held in contempt by a federal judge. So he sent her to jail. That's not a jurisdictional problem. That's just a thing that sometimes happens to stupid people.

[Dragon Ruler]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Oh, I'm sure in her own mind she is a righteous crusader. I don't really care what her opinion is, though. Why should I? She is far away and appears to be both stupid and disagreeable. Others, closer to her and positioned to do so, must bear the burden of dealing with this tempest in a teapot. Once, in a professional capacity I had to deal with some sovereign citizens. I would never do so again, if I can avoid it. Sometimes it's just impossible to have a civilized conversation, explaining things to people.

Edit: ~ dr ~ consider the possibility that you don't know what you're talking about, throwing around these words. She was held in contempt by a federal judge. So he sent her to jail. That's not a jurisdictional problem. That's just a thing that sometimes happens to stupid people.

I may not know what I am talking about, but surely she must have appeal rights?

[Joseph Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Oh, I'm sure in her own mind she is a righteous crusader. I don't really care what her opinion is, though. Why should I? She is far away and appears to be both stupid and disagreeable. Others, closer to her and positioned to do so, must bear the burden of dealing with this tempest in a teapot. Once, in a professional capacity I had to deal with some sovereign citizens. I would never do so again, if I can avoid it. Sometimes it's just impossible to have a civilized conversation, explaining things to people.

Edit: ~ dr ~ consider the possibility that you don't know what you're talking about, throwing around these words. She was held in contempt by a federal judge. So he sent her to jail. That's not a jurisdictional problem. That's just a thing that sometimes happens to stupid people.

I wouldn't go as far to say "stupid". You can be intelligent and have your logic screwed with, and in the sense that she believes she's fighting a holy war, it could be perfectly logical to her.

Imagine if her belief is that her ticket to Heaven hinges on her decision then and there. It may be stupid under a certain light, but under many other lights it can be seen as a logical decision. Depending on the way you look at it, it can be intelligent, she just has a different view of what is *good* than you or I may have.

~JS

[Dad_Scaper]

Judges have broad discretion in the use of their contempt powers. This type of contempt arises from a refusal to comply with a court order. She's already appealed the order itself to the Supreme Court, and she's gotten no relief. The same appellate courts that declined to disturb the judge's order will not now double back and say she can ignore it.

@ js ~ I will grant that some people would not describe her as stupid. That is, however, my opinion.

[Dragon Ruler]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Judges have broad discretion in the use of their contempt powers. This type of contempt arises from a refusal to comply with a court order. She's already appealed the order itself to the Supreme Court, and she's gotten no relief. The same appellate courts that declined to disturb the judge's order will not now double back and say she can ignore it.

@ js ~ I will grant that some people would not describe her as stupid. That is, however, my opinion.

You are probably right -- I'd file it anyway as my guess is she will be in for awhile -- I don't think she's backing down anytime soon.

[Dad_Scaper]

She can quit, or she can do her job, or she can stay in jail. She can waste time with an appeal or she can try to work something out with the trial judge, who has already signaled he's open to compromise.

Or, you know, she can stay in jail.