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

Dec 2013
33,811
19,359
Beware of watermelons
Avoiding the question. How predictable.

It has as much to do with this thread as "Pelosi" and "contractors" do.
More specifically, it has to do with your reply.
You complain about the OP's story being an example of people suing elected officials simply for disagreeing about how the elected official does their job.
I am providing a counter-example relevant to your favored topics regarding how you would say a similar situation would be dealt with. You have made it obvious that you think the courts should intervene to protect groups like Alex Jones (et al) from discrimination by Paypal, Youtube, etc.
A lawsuit over how somebody (those companies) do their job...

But of course, you don't want to admit that because it would lead to a recognition of the hypocrisy.

Um, no. This is an attempt to go into an off topic rabbit hole. I'm not interested in that.

This is about suing an elected official for how they preformed the duties of their office. As far as i know none of the people in the above statment are elected officials.
 
Nov 2005
8,779
3,272
California
Um, no. This is an attempt to go into an off topic rabbit hole. I'm not interested in that.
I guess that should have been my blind response to your "Pelosi" example. :rolleyes:


This is about suing an elected official for how they preformed the duties of their office. As far as i know none of the people in the above statment are elected officials.
Why do you see it as valid to sue a company official because of how they do their job as compared to an elected official because of how they do their job?

Furthermore, you have repeatedly tried to justify forcing companies to not be able to remove Alex Jones, et al from their web-site by using a government standard (i.e. "freedom of speech"). But you insist the remedy has to be different between them, even though the standard that you want to impose is supposedly the same??
 
Last edited:
Jul 2008
18,823
12,633
Virginia Beach, VA
Um, no. This is an attempt to go into an off topic rabbit hole. I'm not interested in that.

This is about suing an elected official for how they preformed the duties of their office. As far as i know none of the people in the above statment are elected officials.
No, this about suing an elected official for NOT performing their duties.
HOW they performed their duties might include not issuing marriage licenses on a Thursday or taking 5 days to issue the license or even requiring that both people provide an original birth certificate instead of a notarized copy.
Davis just flat out REFUSED to do her job. She tried to conflate the beliefs of Kim Davis with the job of Kim Davis.
A police officer may think that you should be able to drink at 18 but he still has to do his job and arrest under age drinkers.
 
May 2018
6,321
4,214
Chicago
No, this about suing an elected official for NOT performing their duties.
HOW they performed their duties might include not issuing marriage licenses on a Thursday or taking 5 days to issue the license or even requiring that both people provide an original birth certificate instead of a notarized copy.
Davis just flat out REFUSED to do her job. She tried to conflate the beliefs of Kim Davis with the job of Kim Davis.
A police officer may think that you should be able to drink at 18 but he still has to do his job and arrest under age drinkers.
Perfectly stated.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,178
Barsoom
No, this about suing an elected official for NOT performing their duties.
This is about the federal government's lack of jurisdiction over sovereign state other than the very limited and very few powers ceded in the Constitution. Davis' duties are none of the federal government's business.
 
Dec 2013
33,811
19,359
Beware of watermelons
I guess that should have been my blind response to your "Pelosi" example. :rolleyes:



Why do you see it as valid to sue a company official because of how they do their job as compared to an elected official because of how they do their job?

Furthermore, you have repeatedly tried to justify forcing companies to not be able to remove Alex Jones, et al from their web-site by using a government standard (i.e. "freedom of speech"). But you insist the remedy has to be different between them, even though the standard that you want to impose is supposedly the same


Why do you see it as valid to sue a company official because of how they do their job as compared to an elected official because of how they do their job?

This is the heart of the argument.

I don't think we as citizens are able to seek damages from an elected official for how they preformed their duties. The Pelosi reference directly addresses this in its absurdity. Sure these contractors can bring a lawsuit against the government but not directly to the official(s) they feel are responsible. Same goes for this marriage licenses thing. We cannot go down this path as a society. It opens up never ending litigation at elected officials. It is ridiculous.

They are elected because they hold specific positions, sometimes polarizing ones. This means more often than not some of their actions will not be looked on favorably by those who dissagree w/ them. Are they to be subjected to lawsuits from here on in. That is just silly.
 
Dec 2013
33,811
19,359
Beware of watermelons
No, this about suing an elected official for NOT performing their duties.
HOW they performed their duties might include not issuing marriage licenses on a Thursday or taking 5 days to issue the license or even requiring that both people provide an original birth certificate instead of a notarized copy.
Davis just flat out REFUSED to do her job. She tried to conflate the beliefs of Kim Davis with the job of Kim Davis.
A police officer may think that you should be able to drink at 18 but he still has to do his job and arrest under age drinkers.

Nothing requires a police officer to make an arrest. In fact they make judgment calls all of the time. Plus police officers are hired employees not elected officials. That is a terrible analogy
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,178
Barsoom
The funny thing about liberals is that they advocate for everything the Revolutionary War fought against, and they advocate for everthing the Constitution was created to prevent.
 
Nov 2005
8,779
3,272
California
First off, you didn't answer the question.
Why do you see it as valid to sue a company official because of how they do their job as compared to an elected official because of how they do their job?


Why do you see it as valid to sue a company official because of how they do their job as compared to an elected official because of how they do their job?
This is the heart of the argument.
I don't think we as citizens are able to seek damages from an elected official for how they preformed their duties.
How many times do I have to point out this is not really about "how they performed their duties" and actually about DENIAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS.
You keep ignoring what the true issue is to create this strawman argument that you have gone on and on about... :rolleyes:

We actually agree that citizens should not be able to "seek damages" because of a disagreement on how "elected officials perform their duties".

Moreover, THIS CASE WAS NOT ABOUT DAMAGES. We're talking about compensation for LAWYER FEES.
Not damages.
You keep arguing about things that are not really what's going on...


The Pelosi reference directly addresses this in its absurdity. Sure these contractors can bring a lawsuit against the government but not directly to the official(s) they feel are responsible. Same goes for this marriage licenses thing. We cannot go down this path as a society. It opens up never ending litigation at elected officials. It is ridiculous.
Again, this is about CIVIL RIGHTS being denied.
There is no trend here for "disagreement" with how "elected officials perform their duties".

I often wonder how many right-wingers (or people who obviously act on their behalf) object to things BASED SOLELY ON FAILING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON.
Lord knows that there are too many right-wing talk radio pundits who make a living off of that...


They are elected because they hold specific positions, sometimes polarizing ones. This means more often than not some of their actions will not be looked on favorably by those who dissagree w/ them. Are they to be subjected to lawsuits from here on in. That is just silly.
This case never set any such precedent.
a) NO DAMAGES are involved.
b) This is NOT about a "disagreement" on "how elected officials perform their duties".
The courts recognize a civil right.
A government employee blocks that civil right.
Ergo, the lawsuit.
 
Likes: leekohler2