Quite Interesting - Constitutional Law Professors Weigh in on Kim Davis Lawsuit

[RKP5637]

The article is not that long, but it is interesting, what several constitutional law professors say about her and her attorneys nonsense. This is extremely important because of the precedence being set. Ignoring marriage equality, etc., does a clerk have the authority to change things as they see fit.

There are several professors weighing in on this, it's an interesting read. I just did one excerpt below.

http://cooleylawschoolblog.com/2015/09/26/constitutional-law-professors-weigh-in-on-kim-davis-lawsuit/

WMU-Cooley Constitutional Law Professor Michael McDaniel believes Davis’ actions are in violation of her oath of office. “Article VI, Sec.1, clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution states ‘… all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…’ and as an elected official of the executive branch of local government, surely is bound by this oath. She breached that oath by interjecting her religious views into her duties as a public official, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”

[Angry Dragon]

1. she should lose her job

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. As has been pointed out many times, she can't be fired

because she is an elected official. Only the legislature can remove her, and it doesn't look like they will.

[RKP5637]

5. I'm wondering if the judge will put this into receivership. n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

17. If there is a provision, she could be recalled...

… and if that's in the local or state constitution, then the pressure to do so should follow!

[RKP5637]

3. Yep, she's unfit to hold the office. ... but as another poster said she can't be outright fired. n/t

[marym625]

4. K&R

Thank you!

I have said it before and I hope my fears are never realized; if she gets away with this, it's the beginning of the end. It will cause a train wreck that won't be stopped and clerks all over the country will start deciding what laws they will and won't enforce.

[RKP5637]

7. It definitely will. They are trying to establish precedence. It extends far far beyond Kim Davis.

They want to inject their brand of religion. And then use this test for precedence, of course, when they do their next stunt.

[marym625]

9. Shameful disrespect to our country and the Constitution. n/t

[hlthe2b]

6. Doesn't seem as if there is any real disagreement among these constitutional scholars...

(as well there should NOT be)

[RKP5637]

8. I'm wondering if the federal judge will put this into receivership. I'm not a lawyer, but

it seems that might be one way to end this entire charade by Kim Davis and her cohorts.

[Downwinder]

10. operate the Clark's office under Federal supervision

like a PD.

[DirkGently]

11. Short version:

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

The huge disqualifying factor for both the "religious freedom" and "civil disobedience" parallels attempted to be drawn is that Davis' "belief" is that she'd like to abuse and discriminate against people.

That's not a "right," nor is it the type of belief that deserves any kind of accommodation.

There is an old bromide Wikipedia attributes to American judicial philosopher Zechariah Chaffee that makes the point pretty well:

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

[nichomachus]

12. If you are a moral person

And your jobs requires you to do something you consider immoral -- you quit your job.

It's not that freaking hard. You don't need to be a law professor to figure it out.

Refusing to do your job and follow the law, while still taking your salary, is immoral. She is basically a thief.

[Glassunion]

13. The 8th commandment.

But who's counting?

[Gothmog]

14. There is not much to discuss

This is not a close constitutional issue and the attorneys representing Davis are idiots and are committing malpractice. This is not a close legal call at all which is reflected by the comments of the law professors.

[RKP5637]

15. I wonder what course of action the federal judge will take ... n/t

[Manifestor_of_Light]

16. What if the Federal judge threw her back in jail for contempt?

She is not following the Constitution (SCOTUS ruling) and not discharging the duties of her office, which is a state misdemeanor.

[RKP5637]

18. I've read a couple of things, that he could put that office into receivership. Then, it seems I read

someplace he could rule she was a criminal and put her into a trial with something like a mandatory 6 month jail sentence. She is being used as a stooge by her attorneys. And, they are getting wealthy at the same time. The whole herd of them are delusional IMO. I also heard a Public Defender could be assigned by the judge to handle her clerk affairs getting her entirely out of the picture.