Anyone supporting Mrs. Davis want to address the fact she is actually in violation of the 1st amendment? The county court clerks office is a government entity that is now sponsoring / endorsing Mrs. Davis version of Christianity.

That's what she's done, she stopped issuing all marriage licenses. The only ones getting press are the same sex ones. In fact the last court challenge to her came from a same sex couple and a traditional couple. And for the record I've maintained all along that she should resign, just like Conway should have resigned.

I realize she has stopped issuing all licenses. The position of no marriage licenses is my position in a perfect world. In the world we live in the government IS in the marriage business.

 

Because of that she should resign and since she won't she needs to face the consequences.

Downtown Ashland

 

 

 

A note from city commissioner Kevin Gunderson regarding tomorrow's Rowan County Clerk hearing at the Federal Courthouse downtown Ashland:

 

My fellow Americans, tomorrow morning in Ashland is ground zero for the debate over Rowan County Clerk's Kim Davis refusal to issue marriage licenses. We are expecting a significant number of protesters on both sides of this issue. National media is likely to be in Ashland covering this national story. You have an absolute right to protest. You do not have a right to break the law. Regardless of your view on this matter, if you go, I encourage and ask for civil obedience for those who attend.

 

 

The US Marshall Service is in charge of security inside the federal courthouse. Ashland Police will have increased presence for pedestrian and traffic control. The portion of 15th Street beside the courthouse may be closed. Parking will be available at city transportation center behind the courthouse.

I'm not really familiar with that situation, but from what little I've read about it in the last 5 minutes, you have a very good point.

 

I'll split hairs here, but the executive branch has always prioritized and re-prioritized which policies get their focus. Limited time, resources, etc. We've always accepted they have a certain amount of discretion in how those resources are used that tend to reflect the preferences of the president, e.g. Holder has moved civil rights cases to prominence in a way Ashcroft or Gonzalez would never have.

 

With that said, I'm not aware of any discretion available to a county clerk. Someone can correct me, but it seems like the are simply the figurehead of/cog in a relatively tiny government service bureaucracy. Could she refuse to register foreign made vehicles due to her beliefs too?

I'll split hairs here, but the executive branch has always prioritized and re-prioritized which policies get their focus. Limited time, resources, etc. We've always accepted they have a certain amount of discretion in how those resources are used that tend to reflect the preferences of the president, e.g. Holder has moved civil rights cases to prominence in a way Ashcroft or Gonzalez would never have.

 

With that said, I'm not aware of any discretion available to a county clerk. Someone can correct me, but it seems like the are simply the figurehead of/cog in a relatively tiny government service bureaucracy. Could she refuse to register foreign made vehicles due to her beliefs too?

 

Apparently not.

Apparently not.

 

Obviously people disagree about it and that's a big part of elections, but broadly I think it's understood. Imagine if after 9/11 the government said "we'd really like to investigate some allegations of terrorism, but there are a few mail fraud cases in Idaho we need to get through first. We've got a pretty big backlog to cover."

I'll split hairs here, but the executive branch has always prioritized and re-prioritized which policies get their focus. Limited time, resources, etc. We've always accepted they have a certain amount of discretion in how those resources are used that tend to reflect the preferences of the president, e.g. Holder has moved civil rights cases to prominence in a way Ashcroft or Gonzalez would never have.

 

More than anything, I think it boils down to what people are passionate about.

 

For the most part, those who support gay marriage are going to strongly oppose this clerk in Rowan County. Not because she's failing to do her job, as they claim, but simply because they support gay marriage. The same is true for those who support her. It's not because they believe this is her right, but because they oppose gay marriage.

 

As I see it, the leaders in our many Sanctuary Cities are doing the exact same thing as this woman (failing to uphold the law). Perhaps the same thing is happening with the federal government & Colorado. Many who oppose the Rowan County clerk say little to nothing about these two situations, and when they do, they explain it away/excuse it with an argument centered around limited resources, priorities, etc.

 

Personally? I don't buy it. People favor marijuana legalization, so they don't mind if the government doesn't enforce federal law. People tend to me more lenient with illegal immigrants, so they don't mind if several American cities don't comply with federal immigration laws.

So would you agree that she isn't doing her job?

 

This is what you are doing.

More than anything, I think it boils down to what people are passionate about.

 

For the most part, those who support gay marriage are going to strongly oppose this clerk in Rowan County. Not because she's failing to do her job, as they claim, but simply because they support gay marriage. The same is true for those who support her. It's not because they believe this is her right, but because they oppose gay marriage.

 

As I see it, the leaders in our many Sanctuary Cities are doing the exact same thing as this woman (failing to uphold the law). Perhaps the same thing is happening with the federal government & Colorado. Many who oppose the Rowan County clerk say little to nothing about these two situations, and when they do, they explain it away/excuse it with an argument centered around limited resources, priorities, etc.

 

Personally? I don't buy it. People favor marijuana legalization, so they don't mind if the government doesn't enforce federal law. People tend to me more lenient with illegal immigrants, so they don't mind if several American cities don't comply with federal immigration laws.

 

There's definitely an overlap between agreeing/disagreeing with the policy and how people feel the government should do its job.

 

I just don't think the comparison between the county clerk and the executive branch holds water. I think a better comparison would be if the Special Agent in charge of the Denver division of the DEA said "I really don't agree with prosecuting marijuana as a drug, so I'm going to command my agents to stop enforcing those laws here. The people have spoken. Harumph." That wouldn't fly.

I just don't think the comparison between the county clerk and the executive branch holds water. I think a better comparison would be if the Special Agent in charge of the Denver division of the DEA said "I really don't agree with prosecuting marijuana as a drug, so I'm going to command my agents to stop enforcing those laws here. The people have spoken. Harumph." That wouldn't fly.

 

Again, my understanding of that particular situation is very limited, but you make a valid point.

 

What about sanctuary cities?

Again, my understanding of that particular situation is very limited, but you make a valid point.

 

What about sanctuary cities?

 

I don't know much of anything about them.

At a minimum, I am not aware of a Federal Judge ORDERING the DOJ / DEA to arrest a pot seller in CO, that DOJ / DEA official seeking a stay of that order from the Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court and having both of them say "Nope, you need to comply whilst your appeal is pending" and then the DOJ / DEA official saying "well, I don't care what they say, I am not going to arrest the pot seller in CO."

 

That is where we are with Mrs. Davis.

I don't know much of anything about them.

 

Per Wikipedia:

 

Sanctuary city is a term that is applied by some to cities in the United States or Canada that have policies designed to not persecute undocumented immigrants. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto). The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about an individual's immigration status. The designation has no legal meaning.

Per Wikipedia:

 

Sanctuary city is a term that is applied by some to cities in the United States or Canada that have policies designed to not persecute undocumented immigrants. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto). The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about an individual's immigration status. The designation has no legal meaning.

 

I guess I know what people mean when they say that but I don't know the nuts and bolts of it or what's truth or fiction.

Further, just like those that say people like Ref would be up in arms if a Muslim elected officer refused to do part of their job based on belief are hypocrites, I'm also seeing a bit of hypocrisy from those that are calling for this woman's head because her position differs from theirs.

 

I've seen many here think that she should resign if she can't legally do her job, but I haven't seen anyone calling for her head as you suggest. Define calling for her head and if it's suggesting that she step down, that's not it.

 

I do however see you making stuff up to support your ideals even if is means blatantly stretching the truth.

 

You're just spitting out words to see where the splatter.