I think she is able to remain an obstacle. We already tried putting her in jail, that didn’t seem to work. It is my understanding that given her intransigence on the issue, the only remedy lies in waiting for the legal gears to turn which will remove her from office. Is there another remedy? What do think should be done to remedy the situation? She we throw her in jail again? And what if we do and she still refuses? How does that remedy the situation? She we put her in solitary confinement until she sees the light? Put her in a really tough prison and make sure the guards look away while her prison stay gets dialed up? She we fine her a $1,000 a day? $10,000? $100,000? My question is, to what degree should the power of the state be used to ruin someone’s life until they knuckle under?
People founded the 13 original colonies for different reasons. The more religious folks founded governments based on *their *interpretation of Christianity; other Protestant sects & Catholics, beware! Lord Baltimore founded Maryland with a call for Religious Toleration–especially for Catholics; that didn’t last. Charles Carroll of Carrollton was the only RC signer of the Declaration of Independence but could not vote when Maryland was a colony. Many other colonies were in it for the money–Virginia, for one; but the Church of England was established & other denominations suffered.
The Quakers founded Pennsylvania & actually allowed religious freedom there. They were exceptional.
After independence, the new country worked out a way to separate Church & State. For the good of both institutions.
Ms Davis needs to live in a compound where her understand of the Bible will be Law. However, she likes that 80,000 per year.
The flaw is with a system that does not allow for efficient dismissal of a clerk who won’t do her job. No matter what those voices in her head tell her.
Not sure. I’d look to the Governor to invoke some emergency powers he might have. Beyond that, the problem is partially with her and partially with how the laws are written regarding elected officials. Please see my comments just before this one. How would you answer the questions I posed?
Again, let’s say this is all 100% correct. I agree she should be removed.
As was stated - she has 3 options
a) grudgingly perfrom her full duties
b) allow her deputy clerks to do it -
c) resign
She does not have the option to contunually skirt the law.
If she won’t do any of the 3 - and putting her in jail allows (b) - then in jail she goes until the legislature can deal with it.
For the record, I’d agree with that phrasing. But she does, in fact, hold that office. Now what? Please see my comments to Princhester.
And she performed her job well until the laws changed. I’m not saying that means that she should not have to follow the law. She should. and if she feels that she can’t, then she should resign.
I agree 100%. But the flaw in the system is not her fault. There are plenty of times that an employee will prefer to be fired rather than resign. Either to simply make a point or for benefits. What is not done is people being locked up until they resign. The weight of the state is not used to make them knuckle under. They’re simply fired if they refuse to do their job.
Stop asking questions and try answering. What now? What is your answer, not what are your questions.
magellan01, you do seem to be stuck on arguing that there has got to be something done to get her out of the way (other than jailing her) that must be imposed on her by some external power – excluding that the proper and right thing to do for someone whose job offends their beliefs is to RESIGN, and problem over.
Is it your position that being compelled to resign would ALSO be a violation of her religious rights? Why, so she should be able to walk away head unbowed saying “I never surrendered”? She is not entitled to that.
If she refuses to perform her duties and insists in staying to throw monkey wrenches into the works, and the one legal remedy available until the next legislative session is the civil contempt procedure, then she brings it upon herself and nobody is taking away her religious protections.
Jail her for contempt and have the law-abiding clerks *disobey her *and fill the forms properly.
Resigning from office goes against her religious beliefs now?
My apologies, I thought we were having a discussion. Actually, that is what I was having. I’ve answered your questions as well as I can. IANAL, so I can’t say with specificity, “Oh, here is the legal fix the situation needs”.
Now if that’s not good enough for you, too bad. And if answering questions in a discussion is beneath you, then you might want to think about why you’re participating on a discussion board. I am genuinely interested in hearing your answers, as I find this conundrum very interesting.
It’s not really to make her “knuckle under” – it’s to sanction her for violating the law, and to prevent her from continuing to violate the law. If the judge determines that she is violating the law and will continue to do so if she remains free to go to her office, then I think it would be appropriate to jail her again (or perhaps the judge will find other remedies). This would sanction her for her violation of the law, and would ensure she could not continue to violate the law as long as she remained jailed. If she agreed to follow the law then she could be freed, or if she resigned her position (and thus would not be in position to continue to violate the law) then she could be freed, or if some other remedy presents itself (like governor or legislative action to remove her) she could be freed, but otherwise, it could be perfectly appropriate to keep her jailed. What part do you disagree with, and why?
I’m particularly enjoying the “My personal opinion is that sometimes it’s wrong for the government to legally jail people, so let’s look to an extra-legal option, preferably involving the governor, because somehow that’s more sensible than all this law-following that’s going on.”
Vegans aren’t required to work in slaughterhouses. Those allergic to peanuts don’t work on peanut farms. Someone who detests man’s law and is unable to adminster it, but has taken an oath to do so, should resign.
This seems simple enough. Why is it so hard to understand?
It would be a “violation” of her pension vesting rights and income security, and whatever status she thinks she has as a minor elected official. That’s really what it’s all about for her, ISTM - fear of having to make her own way somewhere else, as a middle-ager with no other job skills or experience in a low-wage, low-opportunity market. The religious stuff is a stalling technique, and possibly a way to wangle a new income stream.
magellan01, could you please answer my question from post 1378?
Once she is in jail she is physically unable to impede her deputy clerks in the performance of their job duties as the law requires. All of your hypothetical harsher penalties are strawmen and not worthy of discussion. You truly are a petulant asshole.
Yep-sticking her sorry ass back in jail solves problems. She won’t be able to rewrite the forms or get in the way, and the deputies can get on with doing their jobs.
Even though it has been pointed out before, no one is forcing Davis to violate her own convictions or GO TO JAIL. In fact, she has been faced with multiple choices at every step at the way. Her own choices have led to her being jailed.
- Violate her convictions and issue the licenses (IE do her job, the job that she voluntarily ran for and was elected to do), OR
- Step aside and let her deputies issue them without interference from her, OR
- Resign, thus allowing her deputies to do their job, OR
- Continue to try to impose her convictions on her constituents and face jail time for violating a court order.
She is not being punished for her religious convictions. Two of the four choices above allow her to adhere to her religious beliefs. She has made her choices, all the way down the line, to where she is now. She is being punished for her choices to NOT DO HER JOB and in the process, break the law in regards to the court order. She doesn’t seem to recognize secular authority. She knew that the SCOTUS ruling was likely when she ran, and in fact, she began to look for ways to circumvent the potential ruling immediately upon taking office.
The flaw in the system is not her fault. But the choices she has made have led to her being behind bars.
Davis doesn’t have to choose between joblessness & jail. She could just do the other parts of her job & let the marriage licensing proceed without her interference.
She has chosen to “martyr” herself. Alas, I don’t see a lucrative position at Fox in her future…but surely such a traditionalist should desire to stay at home & let her husband provide for her. Does he have a job?