Kim Davis a political prisoner?

[BlaqueKatt]

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

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.

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.

[s_stabeler]

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.

[Gravekeeper]

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.

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. -.-

[Greenday]

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".

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

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.

[jedimaster91]

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.

Ah, ok. I wasn't sure how all that worked. On one hand, I kinda like that the governor doesn't want to waste taxpayer money on this. On the other, the leeway given to judges for contempt charges is a bit frightening.

And, gee, I sure wish I could have the kind of hours legislators have and get paid like they do. Work a couple months out of the year and even then not really do anything, reap massive benefits.

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?

Assuming the rumor is true just for argument's sake, why would you travel out of state and kick up a fuss if you already have those rights where you currently reside and no one trying to circumvent them? The story would have broken eventually regardless.

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)

Hopefully she wouldn't have been relying on that GoFundMe page or whichever crowdfunding site she used. As I recall, it didn't do so well.

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. <snip> 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.

Yeah, like I said at the beginning of the post, it's a bit frightening. Contempt charges can be levied for just about anything if the judge is in a bad enough mood and without some kind of check and balance, you're kinda screwed.

[Kheldarson]

Ah, ok. I wasn't sure how all that worked. On one hand, I kinda like that the governor doesn't want to waste taxpayer money on this. On the other, the leeway given to judges for contempt charges is a bit frightening.

Maybe, but it's the only weapon they have to make you comply. And I'm pretty sure you can appeal it as well.

Assuming the rumor is true just for argument's sake, why would you travel out of state and kick up a fuss if you already have those rights where you currently reside and no one trying to circumvent them? The story would have broken eventually regardless.

Notoriety? Involvement in the news? Why do folks try out for reality TV?

And I'd bet, if it's true that one of the couples is from out of state that they were planning to get married in the county anyway. Kabe and I were living in WV but married in my parent' county, so that's where our marriage license is from.

[Kara_CS]

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.

Yep, she was elected after her mother retired, and her son is the lone deputy clerk who is now refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

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. This muddles things a bit, IMO. Where it went wrong was that she did everything in her power to make sure these couples couldn't get married. Even now, from jail, she is saying that the marriage licenses that have been issued in her absence are void, since they have her name on them. I'm sure a marriage license has NEVER been issued while she was on vacation or taking a day off.

Others have pointed out how her job description hasn't changed and how the nature of the government she worked for remained the same, but there's something else here worth discussing. Here in Utah, we obviously have people who want to cite religious objection to filing marriage licenses for same-sex couples. The LDS made a compromise deal when it was legalized here that if someone objects to dealing with a gay couple, someone who doesn't object will step in and take care of them. Davis had this option, she has 5 or 6 deputy clerks. But she ordered them to refuse to issue the licenses because she objected to it. She was forcing her employees to violate the law and act in accordance with her own personal beliefs, which is all kinds of illegal (and most of the clerks are fine with granting the marriages, even though a couple disagree because of their beliefs because they understand the law better than their boss). Not only that, the judge who found her in contempt did something unprecedented. He gave her multiple opportunities to comply before he finally had her arrested. He tried to work with her, he tried to compromise. He went so far as to say that if she would just allow her deputies to file the marriages, he would drop the case even though she would technically still be in contempt of court. But she refused, she had already made up her mind that she wanted to try and nail herself to a cross. And now her husband and her "attorney" (I have a hard time accepting a law firm that promotes itself as a "ministry" as a legitimate firm) are comparing her to Martin Luther King Jr and Rosa Parks.

[wolfie]

She is a miserable, ignorant, hypocritical woman and deserves the cell she's in. -.-

Got to disagree with you there. She doesn't deserve the cell she's in, however due to standards regarding size, cleanliness, and facilities, it's illegal for an American prison to have the kind of cell she deserves.

[Racket_Man]

are comparing her to Martin Luther King Jr and Rosa Parks.

Ya know I was wondering when Rosa Park's name would pop up in this situation.

NO friggin comparison as the two situations are miles apart. One (and several women before her) was trying to end discrimination and the other one who is trying to impose discrimination.

[protege]

Ya know I was wondering when Rosa Park's name would pop up in this situation.

Actually, there's a reason they're comparing her to Rosa Parks. Think about it, they were both trying to take away the majority's right to persecute the minority

That's the only comparison I can get from it...and I don't know how I typed out all that crap with a straight face.

[Greenday]

Ya know I was wondering when Rosa Park's name would pop up in this situation.

NO friggin comparison as the two situations are miles apart. One (and several women before her) was trying to end discrimination and the other one who is trying to impose discrimination.

There is a clear direct comparison. Davis is the bus driver trying to kick Parks off the bus.

[Shangri-laschild]

Well she's not a prisoner anymore. They let her out and it sounds like she still has no intention of following the law or letting her clerks follow it either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/us...iage.html?_r=0

[Herebecause]

Actually, there's a reason they're comparing her to Rosa Parks. Think about it, they were both trying to take away the majority's right to persecute the minority

That's the only comparison I can get from it...and I don't know how I typed out all that crap with a straight face.

And can you give me something to help justify why her lawyer is now comparing her situation to Nazi Germany? Because last I looked she wasn't having her baby thrown up in the air and shot in front of her just because she and the baby are Christian; she isn't being forced into hard labor with little to no food or clothing; she isn't at risk of being gassed in an oven. But you know, I'm totally open to hearing how her being told to follow a law that forbids discriminating against others is like being in Nazi Germany.

The thing about her is that I usually strongly support people who stand up for their religious beliefs. There are clerks across the country struggling with how to do their job and follow their beliefs, but they are finding ways to make it work without making waves or causing problems. She is trying to find a way to become famous.

[Gravekeeper]

Well she's not a prisoner anymore. They let her out and it sounds like she still has no intention of following the law or letting her clerks follow it either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/us...iage.html?_r=0

We'll see how long it lasts. Her office is to be audited every 14 days to make sure its still in compliance else she goes back to jail. The only reason she was let out is because the other clerks began issuing licenses in her absence. If she stops them again she'll be in jail again in 2 weeks. >.>