Kentucky governor says Kim Davis should pay legal fees in same-sex marriage case

Oct 2010
68,112
27,933
Colorado
#1
This is exactly like something Trump would do.

Kentucky governor says Kim Davis should pay legal fees in same-sex marriage case
As a candidate for governor in 2015, Matt Bevin said he "absolutely supported" a Kentucky county clerk who stopped issuing marriage licenses because of her opposition to gay marriage.​
But four years later, after a court ordered Kentucky taxpayers to pay more than $222,000 in legal fees for the gay and straight couples who sued, outside lawyers for now Gov. Bevin say former Rowan County clerk Kim Davisbroke the law and taxpayers "should not have to collectively bear the financial responsibility for Davis' intransigence."​
"Only Davis refused to comply with the law as was her obligation and as required by the oath of office she took," Bevin attorney Palmer G. Vance II wrote in a brief filed with the court.​
Bevin has been a staunch supporter of Davis, who spent five days in jail for refusing a court order to issue marriage licenses following the historic U.S. Supreme Court ruling that effectively legalized gay marriage. Davis even switched parties, registering as a Republican because she said the Democratic Party abandoned her. But now, Davis and Bevin will oppose each other in federal court on Thursday as lawyers argue who should have to pay for the lawsuit that stemmed from Davis' actions.​

Kentucky governor says Kim Davis should pay legal fees in same-sex marriage case
 
Jun 2018
6,022
1,394
South Dakota
#3
OK, the "people" should not pay, Davis should pay. That means no one will ever pay or receive anything. The judge made the state liable in order to get SOMEONE to pay. I sat on a jury in Calif trying to do the same thing, it's a deep pockets settlement.
 
Likes: Sabcat
Dec 2013
33,811
19,360
Beware of watermelons
#4
Cool. Then those contractors in the other thread should sue nacy Pelosi.


But where does it end? Can parents then sue their elementary school teacher for daycare costs when they toss their little hissy fits?
 
Nov 2005
9,001
3,482
California
#5
Cool. Then those contractors in the other thread should sue nacy Pelosi.
But where does it end? Can parents then sue their elementary school teacher for daycare costs when they toss their little hissy fits?
"Where does it end?"
:rolleyes:

Kim Davis was in violation of her job. She's not there to enforce her religious beliefs. She's there to do a job.
The job involves actual civil rights which in this case is marriage.
A court judge told her that she was violating the civil rights of the requesting couple by refusing to grant them a marriage license.
The couple involved successfully sued because of this denial of civil rights.
All the factors above are incredibly important to the situation involved.

Elementary school teachers and daycare costs.
Do they fit the actual description I laid out above? No.

I realize some people can't think about the complexity of such issues, but it would help if they tried...
 
May 2018
6,670
4,519
Chicago
#6
"Where does it end?"
:rolleyes:

Kim Davis was in violation of her job. She's not there to enforce her religious beliefs. She's there to do a job.
The job involves actual civil rights which in this case is marriage.
A court judge told her that she was violating the civil rights of the requesting couple by refusing to grant them a marriage license.
The couple involved successfully sued because of this denial of civil rights.
All the factors above are incredibly important to the situation involved.

Elementary school teachers and daycare costs.
Do they fit the actual description I laid out above? No.

I realize some people can't think about the complexity of such issues, but it would help if they tried...
Thing is, this case is pretty simple to understand.
 
Likes: Lyzza
Dec 2013
33,811
19,360
Beware of watermelons
#7
"Where does it end?"
:rolleyes:

Kim Davis was in violation of her job. She's not there to enforce her religious beliefs. She's there to do a job.
The job involves actual civil rights which in this case is marriage.
A court judge told her that she was violating the civil rights of the requesting couple by refusing to grant them a marriage license.
The couple involved successfully sued because of this denial of civil rights.
All the factors above are incredibly important to the situation involved.

Elementary school teachers and daycare costs.
Do they fit the actual description I laid out above? No.

I realize some people can't think about the complexity of such issues, but it would help if they tried...


Unsurprisingly you missed the point but that happens when instead of replying to the post in it's entirety you just pick little parts out. This is a constant w/ you.

My favorite is then you follow it up w/ this little nugget


I realize some people can't think about the complexity of such issues, but it would help if they tried


To perfect.


Thanks for that.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,180
Barsoom
#8
Only Davis refused to comply with the law as was her obligation and as required by the oath of office she took," Bevin attorney Palmer G. Vance II wrote in a brief filed with the court.
This is a perfect example of a great defintion of legislating from the bench. There was no law. Calling a Supreme Court opinion a law is a Supreme Court created law, which is legislating from the bench.

Davis' oath of office dictates that she obey the US Constitution and the Kentucky Constitution. She did both. The only jurisdiction that the Supreme Court would have is if a Kentucky law contradicts a constitutional federal law. There is no federal law, and Article VI does not mention the Supreme Court. This is why the impeachment clause covered justices and judges.
 
Jul 2008
18,882
12,692
Virginia Beach, VA
#9
This is a perfect example of a great defintion of legislating from the bench. There was no law. Calling a Supreme Court opinion a law is a Supreme Court created law, which is legislating from the bench.

Davis' oath of office dictates that she obey the US Constitution and the Kentucky Constitution. She did both. The only jurisdiction that the Supreme Court would have is if a Kentucky law contradicts a constitutional federal law. There is no federal law, and Article VI does not mention the Supreme Court. This is why the impeachment clause covered justices and judges.
Actually there was (and still is) a law. The law that allows heterosexual couples to marry. The Supreme Court ruled (as did numerous lower courts)that those laws must apply to homosexual couples as well as per the XIV Amendment.
That is the law Davis violated. It would be no different then if she denied a black person a drivers license because of his race or denied a woman a business license because of her gender.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,180
Barsoom
#10
Actually there was (and still is) a law.
I would like to see this federal law regarding same sex marriage.

I would like to see where this concept is hiding in the Fourteenth Amendment. It must be very encoded because homosexuality was illegal in every state before and after the Fourteenth Amendment.

I would also like to see where substantive due process is in the Fourteenth Amendment considering that it was not created until 1905.

Davis acted exactly how the US Constitution and the Kentucky Constitution dictated she could act.