I’ve changed my mind on the Kim Davis situation. I still think it is a poor place to take a stand, and that a government official needs to act IAW the government rules.
However, in a battle, one can’t always pick the place of battle. Jailing her was excessive, and it seems this is where a battle WILL be fought, regardless of the logical underpinning. So if anyone knows where I can donate to help her with her legal bills, please post a link or advise.
It isn’t the ground I would choose, but it is time to fight.
There will be more....of that you can be certain. But I disagree with you that this is a poor choice.
Let me sum up why...
1. yes, this could be viewed by some as a standard case of civil disobedience where the person who employs this device, should and often does pay a large penalty for it to include imprisonment and/or fine and loss of job.
2. But this is not a standard case! This particular individual also has a protected constitutional status because she is doing it as a result of government infringement of her rights, specifically protected by the constitution because of the religious implications of what I and many other view as a unconstitutional decision by scotus, resulting in a unconstitutional intimidation, threat, and arrest by a supportive federal judge who has thusfar turned down any and all efforts to compromise. They are ramming this through like a pile driver!
I think that if you see this as I do, (and my interests are more constitutional then religiously derived,) you should view supporting this woman, even if a democrat, even if flawed, and in spite of any other argument as a DUTY of any citizen, if not a responsibility as well.
That is how I see it and why I will be leaving south Arkansas sometime very late tonight for my trip to the Carter County Detention Center, 13 Crossbar road, Grayson KY.
The Rally, organized by Mike Huckabee, Is scheduled for 3PM ET, 9/8/15
I'll be there.
The clown-judge acted with flagrant disregard for the law in Kentucky.
Once the Supreme Court invalidated Kentucky's definition of marriage, there can be no legal resolution of a question involving "marriage" in Kentucky, because all an astute attorney has to do is demand the definition, which doesn't exist.
That's how the law works, and why lawyers are needed to nit-pick over the exact wording of legal documents.
I'm not a lawyer, but have always been involved heavily in the precise definition of words and phrases for most of my life, and have observed the shenanigans of the American legal class for nearly twenty years on FR.
If you want to know what lawless pr*cks American federal judges can be, look up David N. Edelstein and his pet IBM case. They had to pry his senile hands from the case after 43 years.