TheMightyEthan Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 Now dean, you know you can't let "facts" get in the way of the truth. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 The judge in that Kentucky county clerk case has ordered that she be released from jail. His new order to her is for her to not interfere with the issuing of the marriage licenses. We'll see how that goes. http://i.imgur.com/43FaHOc.gifv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted September 8, 2015 Report Share Posted September 8, 2015 Makes some sense, I guess, since the licenses are already being issued, and the same-sex couples in Rowan County who wanted licenses at this point have already gotten them. Let's see if she interferes with issuing any licenses to same-sex couples going forward. If there are no more who plan to get married in Rowan County in the near future, this issue may have resolved itself. Personally, I think as long as she has a duty to sign off on valid marriage licenses as county clerk and she refuses to do so, she should be held in contempt because licenses lacking her signature or stamp may not actually be valid, so the same-sex couples would still have their rights violated by her refusal to do her job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 I've just found out about "The Message Bible" and it kinda explains why some American Christians seem like they've not read the bible. They have, just a very different version to everyone else. Our Father in heaven, Reveal who you are. Set the world right; Do what's best— as above, so below. Keep us alive with three square meals. Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others. Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. You're in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes. Oh and "walk through the valley of death" is "walk through Death Valley" which is in America, and a very literate take on a metaphor. On this Kim Davis thing...I feel I'm maybe missing something on ""why not just fire her". I know you guys have the whole "at-will" thing going on so you can fire someone for looking at you funny. Actively refusing to do your job is a fireable offence over here. Oh also John McAfee is running for president: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/252987-software-pioneer-mcafee-files-paperwork-to-run-for-president http://mcafee16.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 She's not an employee, she's an elected official, so they can't just fire her. The state legislature could impeach her for failing/refusing to perform her duties, but they're not in session until like January. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 I've just found out about "The Message Bible" and it kinda explains why some American Christians seem like they've not read the bible. They have, just a very different version to everyone else. Our Father in heaven, Reveal who you are. Set the world right; Do what's best— as above, so below. Keep us alive with three square meals. Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others. Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. You're in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes. Oh and "walk through the valley of death" is "walk through Death Valley" which is in America, and a very literate take on a metaphor. On this Kim Davis thing...I feel I'm maybe missing something on ""why not just fire her". I know you guys have the whole "at-will" thing going on so you can fire someone for looking at you funny. Actively refusing to do your job is a fireable offence over here. Oh also John McAfee is running for president: http://thehill.com/policy/technology/252987-software-pioneer-mcafee-files-paperwork-to-run-for-president http://mcafee16.com/ I hope their meals are literally square then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 She's not an employee, she's an elected official, so they can't just fire her. The state legislature could impeach her for failing/refusing to perform her duties, but they're not in session until like January. There's maybe a "two countries separated by the Atlantic ocean" thing going on here but I thought she's a clerk? That's what the news over here have called her. US Politics can be kinda confusing (as I imagine ours is to you). Civil servants are well civil servants. Though I'm gonna guess you guys use something else to avoid "servants"...isn't it "federal employees" or something. Impeachment is a concept I'm only vaguely aware of nearly happening to Nixon over the whole water scandal (sod the whole "add gate to scandals" stupidity). Okay I'm intrigued: Explain why she's elected, what her job is, and expand on the "she can't be impeached cos stuff isn't in session until January" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 Impeachment is a concept I'm only vaguely aware of nearly happening to Nixon over the whole water scandal (sod the whole "add gate to scandals" stupidity). You might be making a joke but Watergate is the original "gate". So it is proper to call it the Watergate scandal. As for the other stuff, Ethan and GOH will be more proper people to answer it but for a short of what she does (other people can correct me)... she's the record keeper and as far as marriages are concerned, she is the government representative/official that signs off (aka approves and make official) on marriages in her county. Same deal with some other documents too. I recall birth certificates and even zoning documents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 It was a joke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 Yeah, I don't know what exactly her job is in Kentucky, but the general gist will be what Mal said: she handles various official government recording and licensing and whatnot for the county. The position is called County Clerk, but she's actually the elected official in charge of those functions. She has 6 employees under her, who are called Deputy Clerks, and they could just be fired if they refused to do their job. Impeachment is legal process of removing an elected official from office for some kind of official wrongdoing. So yeah, the big ones you'll hear about are presidents, but it can happen to any elected official. Because she is an elected official in Kentucky it would have to be the Kentucky state legislature to impeach her. They're not in session right now, their next one doesn't start till January, so they can't take any official action (such as impeachment, passing new laws, whatever) until then unless the governor calls a special session. The governor has said he won't do that because it costs the state too much money (cause you have to pay all the legislators, and support staff, and reopen the buildings, etc etc) and the courts are handling the issue fine on their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredEffinChopin Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 My reading for class today ended up being pretty relevant. The cases all involved marriages whose validity was being challenged in one way or another. One of them, Accounts Management, Inc. v. Litchfield, involved a marriage which was not properly processed between the solemnization agent (minister) and the county clerk. Not exactly analogous, but it essentially amounted to a marriage that the couple entered into on the assumption of validity, but that due to a administrative error, was being challenged. While this case involves a marriage that was not recorded as opposed to one that doesn't bear the clerk's signature, it still seems very relevant. While there was some conflict in the South Dakota statute that was being relied upon, some of the things taken into consideration by the court were: - (The big one named where the holding was written, at the beginning) "...we construe our licensing statutes to favor validation of marriages even when a statutory formality is overlooked..." - There were only two states at the time (1998) that provided that noncompliance with licensing requirements will render a marriage invalid. - The statute that requires the solemnization agent to file with the register of deeds does not involve the couple at all; and so the question of its validity is based purely on the actions of the state, and not of the couple. - There was no question of fact regarding the couple's status as a couple. It's just one case, and the facts aren't the same, but the notes that follow it in the textbook solidify the idea of clerical intervention not being a sufficient basis on which to void a marriage. I'll quote the book here while abbreviating the case names. Pardon (what I see as) the grammatical error in the first sentence: "The question sometimes arises whether a marriage that is solemnized without a license, or pursuant to a defective license, is valid. Many cases uphold the validity of such marriages. E.g. Carabetta; Denton. See also NY Dom. Rel. L. § 25. But see Moran (holding a marriage invalid where a ceremony was conducted without license; Estate of DePasse (refusing to recognize deathbed marriage ceremony performed without a license); Becker (religious ceremony did not give rise to valid marriage where couple made a deliberate choice not to obtain a marriage license). The fact that a marriage is solemnized by a person not authorized to do so does not invalidate the marriage if either or both parties are not aware of the disqualification." DePasse, Moran, and Becker, the exceptions named, all involve marriages without licenses. It seems that in the case of license defect, anyone in Kentucky with a license given out this week should have solid grounds on which they can support the validity of their licenses, and in turn their marriages. I'm just a student though, so pardon me if there is something I missed. My professor seemed less willing than I was to come down on one side of a prediction when she headed me off by bringing this up in the context of Davis at the start of class today, but they (professors) often are reluctant to do so, which is understandable. Side note: This isn't the only coincidence as far as law school goes. The day that Davis was found to be in contempt of court and ordered to jail, the assigned reading for that same class included Obergefell, this summer's case that held that state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. Also I was in ConLaw over the summer when Obergefell was decided. So while beginning law school at my ripe age has its disadvantages, there are some things about the timing that are working out favorably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 I usually liked how real world events affected my classes. Except when SCOTUS issued the Iqbal and Twombly decisions significantly modifying the liberal pleading standard for 12b6 motions during between the end of my federal civil procedure class and the exam. My gut says the marriage licenses issued without Davis's signature will be held to be valid no matter what and/or made retroactively valid by legislative action early next year. But I have never practiced law in KY and am unfamiliar with its laws and courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted September 10, 2015 Report Share Posted September 10, 2015 My gut says the marriage licenses issued without Davis's signature will be held to be valid no matter what and/or made retroactively valid by legislative action early next year. But I have never practiced law in KY and am unfamiliar with its laws and courts. That would be my guess too, especially since her refusal to issue them has explicitly been found to be a violation of the constitution and a direct court order. Same disclaimer though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 I hear you're having problems with clocks. (Also a GOP debate but I've not heard as much about that) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 Eh. I'm jaded when it comes to that sort stuff. If such and such even remotely looks like a weapon then the student can get in a world of bullshit. In this case though, at least it blown up like it did. I hope to see Ahmed go places in like a decade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 As folks have noted if the principal and police absolutely and utterly truly believed it was an actual bomb and not just plucking him out for skin colour then they wouldn't have casually had a chat with him in the building while surrounded by kids still. They'd have cleared the school and got a bomb squad in. Positive response afterwards, though might be best to not focus on like scholarship n NASA tour invites on a single kid and instead maybe look at the root cause of why a personal science/engineering project got the muslim kid put in cuffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 (edited) Examining the root cause of a social problem and coming to a reasoned, realistic solution is exactly what the American people do worst. Edited September 17, 2015 by Mr. GOH! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 (edited) Yeah, I was going to add a portion in my last comment about race along the lines of how if it was an Asian kid, nobody would have bat an eye. With every positive stereotype, there's something like what happened with Ahmed. I praised the positive response since what happened with the police and school faculty is how you shut down a curious and smart kid. Similar thing happens to countless bright kids all over the country. Oh no, if you're skincolorhere you shouldn't be doing xyz since that is so not skincolorhere. While these cases I'm talking about doesn't usually result in handcuffs, they are to me equally infuriating. Edit: @GOH Yay zero tolerance! You know Irvine PD, the ones that detained and cuff Ahmed, twitter account/social media was promoting zero tolerance with a t-shirt. Like, shit man, it's worse than DARE. DARE makes me cringe and slightly (a buddy of mines almost got coheres to turn his parents in for pot when that was all the rage) mad but zero tolerance is worse. Edited September 17, 2015 by MaliciousH 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 Just heard about this "Women on notes" thing. Bush picked Thatcher?! Even we wouldn't pick her and she's from our country. Did no one in the audience pipe up to help out? "Hold on guys, I got this, I've got binders full of women!" 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 http://imgur.com/a/h3Yrw Teeth of presidential candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted September 25, 2015 Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1360799732 Unsurprisingly I'm a damn dirty socialist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted September 25, 2015 Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 (edited) I was moderately left wing in the UK, which apparently is extremely left wing in the US. Rand Paul was my best match Republican, but that was just 46%. Is he relatively moderate by Republican standards? Can't say I've actually heard of him. Edited September 25, 2015 by TheFlyingGerbil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRevanchist Posted September 25, 2015 Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1361673083?from=VRDAR7uSH Well, I'm more liberal in the US than in the UK, but a centralist. I had voted and supported the Green Party, but have voted Democrat more in the recent years. I must be getting old and grumpy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted September 25, 2015 Report Share Posted September 25, 2015 Here's mine: http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1361739231 Still absurdly liberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted September 26, 2015 Report Share Posted September 26, 2015 http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1361791708 I didn't do much of how much I care for such-and-such issue so that will skew how I really feel but it is close enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.