Go Back   Fratching! > General > Church and State

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #11  
Old 09-06-2015, 09:48 AM
Racket_Man's Avatar
Racket_Man Racket_Man is offline
stressed broke pizza guy
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravekeeper View Post
....Jane Fonda? I'm almost too scared to ask. Almost. >.>
That stems from way back in the late 1960's and early 1970's when Jan Fonda went to N. Vietnam and supposedly "aided and abetted" the enemy.'
'
story here:https://patriotpost.us/pages/80
__________________
I'm lost without a paddle and I'm headed up sh*t creek.

I got one foot on a banana peel and the other in the Twilight Zone.
The Fools - Life Sucks Then You Die
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 09-06-2015, 01:34 PM
jedimaster91's Avatar
jedimaster91 jedimaster91 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 183
Default

The fact that it seems she was thrown in there with no bail, no trial date, and she's basically in jail "until she breaks" so to speak bothers me. She's certainly made it clear she will not issue licenses nor allow her underlings to do so, so I don't quite understand why a judge either can't start the impeachment process or recommend it to the state legislature. They're going to have to let her out eventually since you can't just throw people in jail indefinitely. Then what?

There's also a (unsubstantiated and likely false) rumor that one of the couples was from out of state and came down to that specific courthouse for the sole purpose of kicking up a media frenzy. Regardless of the veracity of that claim, does it really change anything?
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 09-06-2015, 02:54 PM
Rageaholic Rageaholic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,814
Default

You know, at first I thought jail was unnecessary seeing how she should have just been fired, but if she was really doing everything she could to make the marriage license void, then she can rot for all I care (after a fair trial of course).
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 09-06-2015, 03:10 PM
protege protege is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racket_Man View Post
That stems from way back in the late 1960's and early 1970's when Jan Fonda went to N. Vietnam and supposedly "aided and abetted" the enemy.'
That's exactly what he's referring to. As I said earlier, I find her actions disgusting. Still though, it's been over 40 years. Let it go.
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 09-06-2015, 03:15 PM
Kheldarson Kheldarson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jedimaster91 View Post
The fact that it seems she was thrown in there with no bail, no trial date, and she's basically in jail "until she breaks" so to speak bothers me. She's certainly made it clear she will not issue licenses nor allow her underlings to do so, so I don't quite understand why a judge either can't start the impeachment process or recommend it to the state legislature. They're going to have to let her out eventually since you can't just throw people in jail indefinitely. Then what?
The judge can't start impeachment. That's not his role. He can advise it, but the legislature is out of session, and the governor seems disinclined to spend the money needed to call a special session. So they won't meet until next year. So she'll be in jail for contempt until she stops being in contempt by either agreeing to do her job or being removed from her job.

Quote:
There's also a (unsubstantiated and likely false) rumor that one of the couples was from out of state and came down to that specific courthouse for the sole purpose of kicking up a media frenzy. Regardless of the veracity of that claim, does it really change anything?
Only changes the number of couples with a legit beef. A big part of the issue is that if you're paying taxes at home, why should you have to go elsewhere to be given your government recognized rights?
__________________
I has a blog!
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 09-06-2015, 03:22 PM
BlaqueKatt BlaqueKatt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,539
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jedimaster91 View Post
The fact that it seems she was thrown in there with no bail, no trial date, and she's basically in jail "until she breaks" so to speak bothers me. She's certainly made it clear she will not issue licenses nor allow her underlings to do so, so I don't quite understand why a judge either can't start the impeachment process or recommend it to the state legislature. They're going to have to let her out eventually since you can't just throw people in jail indefinitely. Then what?

The legislature doesn't meet until january, and the governor has said he won't call a special session for impeachment-a judge can't impeach, it's a legislative process, and the legislature isn't in session.
Impeachment process


wiki
Quote:
The civil sanction for contempt (which is typically incarceration in the custody of the sheriff or similar court officer) is limited in its imposition for so long as the disobedience to the court's order continues: once the party complies with the court's order, the sanction is lifted. The imposed party is said to "hold the keys" to his or her own cell, thus conventional due process is not required.
One person was held for 14 years on contempt of court charges.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rageaholic View Post
You know, at first I thought jail was unnecessary seeing how she should have just been fired, but if she was really doing everything she could to make the marriage license void, then she can rot for all I care (after a fair trial of course).

elected officials can't be fired. contempt of court does not require due process.

Last edited by BlaqueKatt; 09-06-2015 at 03:24 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #17  
Old 09-06-2015, 03:35 PM
s_stabeler s_stabeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jedimaster91 View Post
They're going to have to let her out eventually since you can't just throw people in jail indefinitely.
actually, one of the reasons the judical power to jail people for contempt of court w/o a trial is controversial is because it's been ruled in the past that you can, in fact, be held indefinitely in jail on a contempt charge. (and no, this isn't a hypothetical: the question arose because someone had been in prison for 17 years on a contempt charge. As it happened, they were released because the State in question pardoned them.)

The good news is that there IS a limit- basically, to throw someone in jail on a contempt charge, a judge must explain exactly why jail is necessary to force compliance. (in Davis's case, it was because the judge felt it likely that any fine would be paid by her supporters)

As for there being no bail, or trial date, that's because bail would defeat the point of imprisoning someone to get them to comply with a court order, and there IS no trial, since it is technically not a punitive measure. ( to draw an analogy, civil Contempt proceedings are the equivalent of a parent telling their kid/s that they can't play on the computer until they have done their homework- if they see the kid on the computer, and question the kid, and he can point to his completed homework, then the kid can carry on with the game. In civil Contempt of Court proceedings, one you are in compliance with the court order- or, incidentally, can prove you've tried your best to comply, but it is, in fact, impossible to- the punishment ends immediately. With criminal contempt proceedings- which DO require a trial- It is the equivalent o the parent banning the kid from playing computer games for a week because the kid keeps refusing to do his homework. In that case, even IF the kid does his homework- is in compliance with the court order- then he will not be let off the punishment.)

I'm not sure I agree with how much latitude judges have in contempt cases- I personally think it should require a second judge to agree that the person is in contempt and that the proposed punishment is actually necessary- but it is true enough that courts need SOME way to enforce their decrees.
Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 09-06-2015, 04:21 PM
Gravekeeper Gravekeeper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racket_Man View Post
That stems from way back in the late 1960's and early 1970's when Jan Fonda went to N. Vietnam and supposedly "aided and abetted" the enemy.'
'
story here:https://patriotpost.us/pages/80
Ah, I knew some of that but didn't realize she had been that much of an idiot.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jedimaster91 View Post
The fact that it seems she was thrown in there with no bail, no trial date, and she's basically in jail "until she breaks" so to speak bothers me.
As was mentioned, she holds the keys to her own cell so to speak. Its not a matter of "breaking". Seeing as she not only refused to comply with the law but likewise prevented her employees from complying. That goes into willful sabotage.

She could at any point either comply with the law or simply resign. But she has likewise refused to resign. She is in jail because she is, in essence, a stubborn hypocritical dipshit seeking to illegally impose her beliefs on others at all costs. She wants to keep a job she doesn't want to do and expects the entire country to change for her job instead of her job changing for her country.

So no, I have no sympathy. She is a miserable, ignorant, hypocritical woman and deserves the cell she's in. -.-
Reply With Quote

  #19  
Old 09-06-2015, 06:54 PM
Greenday's Avatar
Greenday Greenday is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 6,978
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragarthiel View Post
This bothers me. When she took the job, she didn't know that she would eventually have to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Her job requirements changed while she was there, and she objects to the new requirement.
Her job requirements are the exact same as when she started. They were "file paperwork for couples getting married", not "file paperwork for straight married couples".
__________________
Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers
Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 09-06-2015, 06:59 PM
Crazedclerkthe2nd Crazedclerkthe2nd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravekeeper View Post
Ah, I knew some of that but didn't realize she had been that much of an idiot.

As was mentioned, she holds the keys to her own cell so to speak. Its not a matter of "breaking". Seeing as she not only refused to comply with the law but likewise prevented her employees from complying. That goes into willful sabotage.

She could at any point either comply with the law or simply resign. But she has likewise refused to resign. She is in jail because she is, in essence, a stubborn hypocritical dipshit seeking to illegally impose her beliefs on others at all costs. She wants to keep a job she doesn't want to do and expects the entire country to change for her job instead of her job changing for her country.

So no, I have no sympathy. She is a miserable, ignorant, hypocritical woman and deserves the cell she's in. -.-
Also of note: There's a LOT of nepotism in that office. I believe she's the third generation of her family to hold the job without any gaps (passed straight form her grandparent to her mom to her) and some of her deputies are relatives as well.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:23 PM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.