Anyone know why bail was not an option?

Anyone know why bail was not an option?

 

I assume there's not a trial they want to ensure she'll come back for. Being found in contempt is comparable to a guilty verdict?

Anyone know why bail was not an option?

 

Contempt seeks to compel an action. Judge said he would not fine Davis presumably because it would not deter the action in light of the fact that others could raise the fine amount for her and she would not "feel the pain" and comply.

 

Since there is no criminal act, there won't be a trial for her to show up for. As such, bail would not be warranted and would serve the same as a fine.

I think it is bad form and bad strategy for that cause to show up at the Judge's house. It unnecessarily involves others that should be left out of the dispute.

 

That said, so long as they stay on public property and don't make any threats, the 1st Amendment permits them to do this.

 

Certainly hope none of those vehicles speed or have expired plates, etc. whilst in The City of Beautiful Homes. Sure would hate for them to get a ticket.

Being found in contempt of court is not a charge that warrants a trial. In order to get out of jail, the person found in contempt usually must agree to fulfill whatever reason they are put into jail in the first place. Not sure what's going to happen in this case when she obviously does not planning on changing her mind.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/opinion/we-dont-need-kim-davis-to-be-in-jail.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/opinion/we-dont-need-kim-davis-to-be-in-jail.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

 

Gotta admit that I completely disagree with this quote from the article:

 

Ms. Davis wasn’t trying to prevent same-sex couples from getting marriage licenses at all; she just didn’t want her name or title on the paperwork.

Do you agree with the rest of it?

No bail?

 

Even child molesters get bail.

I work at a hotel (I've mentioned before) and I am dealing with these people and just got done having a conversation with the group who were at the Judges house. Town is afraid of a possible riot, and up to a million person march. I'm heading to Ashlnd to avoid the entire situation (also have classes).

 

There have been multiple threats to people of authority from hate groups and the Westboro group is here but being watched very closely. There is a possibility this could be big. The entire situation is pathetic in my opinion. This woman isn't even from Grayson, the Carter County Detention Center is the only jail in the area that houses federal inmates though.

 

 

Also Melinis is still open, but the best restaurant in town is Tres Hermanos Nunez! I don't recommend trying to come to town tomorrow.

No bail?

 

Even child molesters get bail.

 

A few made honest attempts at an explanation for no bail that seemed rational and perhaps were accurate... But where's the fun in that or examining just what is the best possible reason when you can just make negative irrational illogical statements instead?

A few made honest attempts at an explanation for no bail that seemed rational and perhaps were accurate... But where's the fun in that or examining just what is the best possible reason when you can just make negative irrational illogical statements instead?

 

But of course you don't see my thinking. Why would you since I don't go along with the rest of society.

 

My saying what I did is because you got a woman in jail for refusing to give marriage license to homosexuals, but yet people who molest and rape little kids can get out of jail on bail.

I don't care if it's contempt or what the rules are, she is in jail while a sex offender is out.

 

Sorry but I don't see it as fair.

There's a portable hospital by the jail "just in case".

Just read this post on Facebook. I dont know this lady who posted it, but I am going to research this some more. Read and tell me what you think:

 

I was in favor of Kim Davis being jailed last week in Ky because I believed the media when they said she was violating the law by refusing to issue a marriage license to same sex couples. But, I heard a comment from Mike Huckabee that made me wonder if it was true. So I did a little reading. Remember in Civics class where we learned that Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court interprets them? Ok, in 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) into Federal law stating that marriag was between a man and a woman. There was no Federal Law concerning marriage prior to that, so DOMA became THE Federal statute pertaining to marriage. The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that PART of DOMA was unconstitutional and some states voted to allow same sex marriage. However, they were in conflict with the remaining articles of DOMA. The way Federal Laws work is that state law can be MORE restrictive but it cannot be less restrictive than Federal law. So, some states, who voted to recognize same sex marriage were in conflict with Federal Law. Which is the reason the Supreme Court heard the issue again this year. We all know their decision. But, what we apparently forgot is that since they can't make law, their decision to declare DOMA unconstitutional resulted in there being NO federal law concerning marriage. Which means, jurisdiction falls to the state. And what that means boys and girls is that Kim Davis IS NOT in violation of ANY law by refusing to issue marriage licenses after the SCOTUS ruling. In fact, if she had issued a license to a same sex couple, she would have been in violation of the state laws of Kentucky, which had voted no on the issue.

Congress failed to be prepared to handle the situation resulting from SCOTUS striking down DOMA by writing a new Federal Law so we are left with the issue being handled at a state level. In the states that voted no on this issue, same sex marriage is not Federally protected.

Like it or not, agree with it or not, that's the way the law works in this country.

Just read this post on Facebook. I dont know this lady who posted it' date=' but I am going to research this some more. Read and tell me what you think: I was in favor of Kim Davis being jailed last week in Ky because I believed the media when they said she was violating the law by refusing to issue a marriage license to same sex couples. But, I heard a comment from Mike Huckabee that made me wonder if it was true. So I did a little reading. Remember in Civics class where we learned that Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court interprets them? Ok, in 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) into Federal law stating that marriag was between a man and a woman. There was no Federal Law concerning marriage prior to that, so DOMA became THE Federal statute pertaining to marriage. The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that PART of DOMA was unconstitutional and some states voted to allow same sex marriage. However, they were in conflict with the remaining articles of DOMA. The way Federal Laws work is that state law can be MORE restrictive but it cannot be less restrictive than Federal law. So, some states, who voted to recognize same sex marriage were in conflict with Federal Law. Which is the reason the Supreme Court heard the issue again this year. We all know their decision. But, what we apparently forgot is that since they can't make law, their decision to declare DOMA unconstitutional resulted in there being NO federal law concerning marriage. Which means, jurisdiction falls to the state. And what that means boys and girls is that Kim Davis IS NOT in violation of ANY law by refusing to issue marriage licenses after the SCOTUS ruling. In fact, if she had issued a license to a same sex couple, she would have been in violation of the state laws of Kentucky, which had voted no on the issue. Congress failed to be prepared to handle the situation resulting from SCOTUS striking down DOMA by writing a new Federal Law so we are left with the issue being handled at a state level. In the states that voted no on this issue, same sex marriage is not Federally protected. Like it or not, agree with it or not, that's the way the law works in this country. [/quote']

 

 

As soon as you saw "Huckabee" you should have stopped reading.

 

As I've mentioned in a few threads on here a)Huckabee should never be your source because he's playing to an audience of a certain mindset and b)the SCOTUS did NOT eliminate marriage laws. The 14th still exists. What they DID do was eliminate ONE PART of the marriage law. There is NO need to have states re-write their marriage laws. They CAN but it's NOT necessary.

 

If you just remember the above you can dismiss every article that says there are no valid marriage laws and that SCOTUS "wrote law."