Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then either fire her, fine her or implement a conscientious objector status for her.
Dear Lord, do we have to go though this again?
It's an elected position, so she can't be fired.
She's backed by a million stupid fundies and the judge decided fines wouldn't be a deterrent. Thet's perfectly within his discretion.
And she refused to let her deputies sign instead of her.
Then either fire her, fine her or implement a conscientious objector status for her.
Government officials violate federal law every single day and not one of them ever goes to jail for it.
She can't be fired because she's an elected official. She can only be impeached.
If the judge had fined her, someone would have started a GoFundMe campaign and her fine would have been paid immediately. She would not have had an incentive to follow the law.
In essence, conscientious objector status has been granted to her. She's allowed to continue in her job and she does not have to personally issue marriage licenses.
So why do the oathkeepers feel a need to protect her?
It's an elected position, so she can't be fired.
She's backed by a million stupid fundies and the judge decided fines wouldn't be a deterrent. Thet's perfectly within his discretion.
And she refused to let her deputies sign instead of her.
How about she do her job, or quit?
Weird how the left does a 180 degree turn and then defends the Clintons for violating court orders..
I don't know the ins and outs of the Fast and Furious issue or whether the allegations in the second link about Holder are true at all.
But, assuming it's all true and those in charge of pursuing contempt against Holder or charging him with a crime were derelict in their duties, it doesn't mean that the Judge shouldn't hold Davis in contempt.
When she didn't want to issue the licenses she pursued her right to refuse to the Supreme Court and was denied the relief she sought. What she was left with was an order to issue the licenses. When she refused to do so, people who wanted the licenses went to federal court to get the judge to order her to do so. He did and when she refused, he held her in contempt.
In both instances regarding Holder, you don't have an enforceable court order that a judge can look to as a basis for either holding Holder in contempt or charging him with a crime. You may be 100% right that law enforcement officials are not doing their jobs. But it doesn't have any bearing on the fact that Judge Bunning IS doing his job and upholding the Constitution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
