IANAL, though maybe I should have been, have you seen what they make? Anyway, I digress.
I’m afraid I don’t have any opinion to offer on whether there might be actual grounds for Paxton to be disbarred, though since that would have to be an action by the Texas Bar, I doubt they’d muster up the will even if what he’s doing rises to the standard. Pretty nervy to disbar the AG.
As for the forms, though–maybe this should be a new thread–but how much do markups to the forms really matter? I thought it was well established that if you think you’ve been married properly, you’re married–even if it turns out the priest was defrocked, or the clerk used the wrong seal, or whatever.
Probably not worth another thread in this case, but if you accept a form which has been altered, then one could argue that you should have known that wasn’t a valid license to marry. Nobody (that I am aware of) who gets to make that decision in Texas has said this is an issue. Paxton’s directive to provide reasonable accommodations, without regards to the form, suggests that it isn’t going to be an issue, but this is politics, so who knows? I would guess that if they wanted to play the FUD card, they would have said something, even if it was just a rumor.
Sure, as Omar pointed out, but on what grounds?
Emphasis mine. This is very interesting, because I think you are getting half the story. He has not said in an official capacity (no matter how many times it gets reported that way) that he is blocking SCOTUS and denying any of the licenses. He has directed the county clerks with religous objections to delegate to someone who can issue the license and if that is not possible accept the fact they will get lawyers involved. He did say that he would support someone exercising their 1st Amendment right to wrt their religion - but what exactly could he do in such a lawsuit other than defend the state via a “reasonable accommodation” defense?
Bridget Burke posted some good links upstream, but here is an article from the LA Times which does a much better job of outlining the positions and the issues:
Once again, ad hominem on Texas aside, what is being done wrong? Where is the “Rule of Law” being cast aside?
This is a government bureaucracy, they need a little bit of time to update forms, processes, rules, etc.
I would say it’s very American to disagree with a decision vocally (free speech and all that), but follow what the decision says. Which is what it happening in Texas. People complain because they aren’t automatically handed a license 5 minutes after the ruling is handed down.
Wrong. People are upset because the Attorney General ( the top cop in the People’s Republic of Texas ) is suggesting to people that they disobey the Supreme Court ruling.
Instead of upholding the Constitution and the laws of the land, this peckerhead is encouraging illegal activities.
That is why people are upset. But then, you knew that.
In breaking news, it’s looking like the answer to the question "Can Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton be disbarred? " may turn out to be yes (I repeat, may.) Though not actually for marriage license-related reasons.
I’m assuming a felony fraud conviction could be sufficient for disbarment in Texas (whether it’s something the bar association is likely to do is a completely different story, of course).
Am I reading this right? Is Paxton also saying that if a clerk refuses to issue a license the state will not provide legal assistance when they get sued?
If so, I think that is actually a big deal. Paxton is telling the clerks to suck it up, while packaging it in a homophobic way his supporters demand.
Note: I do not in any way support Paxton and voted against him. I consider him a disgrace for our state. Still, if he’s refusing to spend tax dollars on defending the homophobes, that’s something.
Depending on Texas’ constitutional and administrative structure, he probably can’t spend taxpayer money defending the homophobes. Most states make municipalities, counties and other subdivisions pay their own legal bills.
I don’t like Paxton much either, and everything I’ve ever heard from acquaintances in the legal and state government world says that Paxton is about one step from having rode the short-bus to law school.
But I read what he said like you say above, and have to admit that’s more clever than I’d given him credit for, in a sort of “respect your enemy’s cunning” kind of way.
I’m personally hoping that a lot of county clerks get smacked around by lawsuits, or the threat of lawsuits, and that his rather devious statement bites him and the other Tea Baggers in the ass.
I believe that the disbarment rises from the AG intentionally providing legal advice that he knows is contrary to the clients’ needs. In other words, as your (the county clerks’) attorney, he is advising them to do something that is certain to have an adverse effect on them and he knows this. I would not want an attorney who advised me to get sued unless said suit was the path to the desired outcome. In this case, even if the clerks’ desired outcome is not to issue marriage licenses, the eventual suit is not the path to this outcome.
In this case, Paxton, Abbott, and Patrick, are being absolute weasels. They are encouraging fairly low-paid county clerks to expose themselves to personal liability when they themselves have no exposure. These are guys who stand below the bridge and yell “Jump!” to the guy considering suicide. MLK dreamed of a future where men were judged by the content of their characters. Not that I’m surprised, but this episode exposes the disgusting and smelly content of these guys’ characters. They could continue to rail against SSM without throwing county clerks to the wolves. Bastards.
