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.
I think she should be fired but putting her in jail is abuse by our government. Good job Oath Keepers.
Her lawyers told the Oath Keepers not to come, so they never showed. It was a rare moment of sanity for the defense.
But now it looks like Kim has once again disobeyed the court's orders by tampering with the marriage certificates and interfering with her deputy clerk carrying out the judge's orders. The clerk's lawyer brought this to the attention of the judge in a court filing this afternoon.
She was released from jail on the stipulation that she not defy the court's orders, and she has violated that stipulation. I think jail is very appropriate in this case.
The original point being made by the Oath Keepers is valid, a judge should not have the power to charge, convict, and sentence someone for contempt of court without due process. I'm fine with Kim Davis being charged with contempt of court, but she should be entitled to a fair trail to defend herself from the charge.
The original point being made by the Oath Keepers is valid, a judge should not have the power to charge, convict, and sentence someone for contempt of court without due process. I'm fine with Kim Davis being charged with contempt of court, but she should be entitled to a fair trail to defend herself from the charge.
She did have due process. OR do you not consider a judge ruling on a civil charge after both sides attorneys arguing the case, issuing orders, those orders being appealed all the way to the supreme court, then calling in the woman and her attorneys to defend why she refused to follow the orders, then finally jailing the woman for refusing to follow the courts orders due process. Even the supreme court refused to intervene on the case. If there was an issue I'm pretty sure that either the circuit court or the supreme court would have noticed it.
This is a civil judgement, not a criminal one. There generally isn't a jury trial for civil cases.
She did have due process. OR do you not consider a judge ruling on a civil charge after both sides attorneys arguing the case, issuing orders, those orders being appealed all the way to the supreme court, then calling in the woman and her attorneys to defend why she refused to follow the orders, then finally jailing the woman for refusing to follow the courts orders due process. Even the supreme court refused to intervene on the case. If there was an issue I'm pretty sure that either the circuit court or the supreme court would have noticed it.
This is a civil judgement, not a criminal one. There generally isn't a jury trial for civil cases.
I get that, but the point is that a judge shouldn't have the power to jail someone in a civil case. I would have no problem with the judge issuing a fine, but jail time without a criminal charge, and a criminal trail, is something many people do not support.
I get that, but the point is that a judge shouldn't have the power to jail someone in a civil case. I would have no problem with the judge issuing a fine, but jail time without a criminal charge, and a criminal trail, is something many people do not support.
She wasn't put in jail for a civil matter, she was jailed for willfully defying a court order. The judge is perfectly within his rights to jail her for that. And as has been pointed out many times already, the judge rejected the idea of a fine because her supporters would have raised the funds to pay it through crowdfunding, thus negating any punitive value.
She wasn't put in jail for a civil matter, she was jailed for willfully defying a court order. The judge is perfectly within his rights to jail her for that. And as has been pointed out many times already, the judge rejected the idea of a fine because her supporters would have raised the funds to pay it through crowdfunding, thus negating any punitive value.
I'm not claiming the judge acted illegally.
What you just said is that it was no longer a civil matter. Then it should have been turned over to the parties that handle criminal matters.
Let me be clear, this isn't about Kim Davis, it's about judges having authority many believe they shouldn't. Most people do not support the idea of a judge acting as both a judge, and jury to convict someone, then sentencing them to jail time. If it's believed that someone has broken a court order, then bring criminal charges against them, and let them have a jury trial.
The issue is very simple, most people believe that a judge should never have the power to sentence someone to jail time without first being convicted by a jury for a criminal offense.
Last edited by stburr91; 09-19-2015 at 11:00 AM..
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.
