Sunday, September 6, 2015

The Worst Person in America



Kim Davis is the worst person in America.

According to Social Justice Warriors, the main stream media, bloggers, catamites and the grifters who have to sit at the Thanksgiving Table with them. She is the worst because she refused to participate in same sex marriage. Now how was she forced to participate you might ask? As county clerk her name would be on every document validating the celebration of sodomy that defiles the sanctity of marriage that has existed for all of recorded human history. Just like the baker and the photographer who did not want to affirmatively participate in what she regards as sin she is being forced to conform at the price of incarceration. An unelected judge has incarcerated an elected official for not complying with the latest version of socially acceptable perversion.

Kim Davis is being mocked for her personal history. She has been married several times. She has made mistakes in her life. I mean she didn’t have meaningless sex in men’s rooms or molested young boys who were trying to break into the movies but she was married a couple or three times. She found Jesus a few years ago and was born again. She sought forgiveness and redemption and is trying to live a righteous life. For that she is being ceaselessly mocked, derided and in fact incarcerated. She is trying to live up to her religious beliefs. She is bearing witness. She is willing to go to jail for it. I admire her. I don’t know if I would be courageous enough to do that. I do know that I do not see any Catholic prelates or Orthodox Rabbi’s or Mormon Bishops speaking out in her defense. But then that is not how it works. They are interested in their power and their perks and not the basic bulwark of their beliefs. Not surprising in the least. It is endemic to the human condition. Your leaders “out grow” the beliefs that put them there in the first place. Rhinos in the face of God.

Kim Davis was incarcerated because the Judge refused to fine her. He has said that he didn’t want people to step up to pay her fine. He didn’t want to use the legally mandated option of impeachment and removal from office. He wanted to impose his will at all costs. At the cost of putting same sex marriage over the conscience of an elected official who serves the people who elected her. They are the ones who should seek her dismissal. But they won’t. I bet if she runs again she will be reelected overwhelmingly. That will not stand in the face of judicially mandated coercion. The judge would brook no compromise. They wouldn’t take her name off of the documents. It is not enough for the forces at work here. It will never be enough. They are demanding that she resign. That religious people be precluded from being elected and serving while following their religious principles. Of course this only applies to observant Christians. You can demand to wear a Hajib at Abercrombie and Fitch and the courts will fall over themselves to demand that you have that right. You can shelter illegal immigrant murderers and refuse to deport them and the courts won’t touch you. But same sex marriage is different.

Expect to see more people go to jail. More Christians to be incarcerated. It is coming to a church near you sooner rather than later. Get used to it.


Winter is here.

69 comments:

windbag said...

Everyone knows she's a Democrat, right? Fascists. I'm waiting for the day when a Muslim is jailed for not kowtowing to the gays. And why are any of those courageous social justice warriors targeting any Muslim businesses?

edutcher said...

Nothing is as self-righteous as a Lefty looking down his nose at someone who doesn't hold to the code of Leftist Immorality, but, though he/she didn't always live up to the faith, probably has still done a lot better than said Lefty.

edutcher said...

windbag said...

Everyone knows she's a Democrat, right? Fascists. I'm waiting for the day when a Muslim is jailed for not kowtowing to the gays. And why are any of those courageous social justice warriors targeting any Muslim businesses?

Too close to high rises.

ndspinelli said...

The left "lifted" smugness to an art form. Bill Maher is a Hall of Fame smugger.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

I blame Andrew Sullivan for creating all this.

Trooper York said...

He is part of it but there is plenty of blame to go around.

I blame our religious leaders who did not stand up to this nonsense. That had to extract a political price to people running rough shod over the practice of religion.

Soon enough we will see pastors and priests arrested in their pulpits for preaching against homosexuality. It is only a matter of time.

windbag said...

He is part of it but there is plenty of blame to go around.

Yes, lots of culprits, one of the chief being relativism.

ricpic said...

Next to controlling all of us the only thing the statist thugs care about is their income stream. A tax strike would get their attention. Or is calling for that that beyond the gumption of our religious leaders?

ricpic said...

I just realized that if the religious leaders called for a general tax strike it would endanger their rice bowl. So they're not gonna do it. No one wants to lose his rice bowl, that's priority #1, so the whole horror show goes on and on an.....

chickelit said...

Kim Davis was incarcerated because the Judge refused to fine her. He has said that he didn’t want people to step up to pay her fine. He didn’t want to use the legally mandated option of impeachment and removal from office. He wanted to impose his will at all costs.

That judge is an idiot and I hope a higher legal authority has the sense to step in and put an end to this farce. I don't care if he/she has a well-connected Republican family.

The political wheels of justice need more lube in KY.

chickelit said...

Lem said...
I blame Andrew Sullivan for creating all this.

He always struck me as the vindictive type so yes.

rcocean said...

I have mixed feelings about this. OTH, I sympathize, OTOH has the women been paying attention to the news for her entire life?

All this crap occurs because people have bought into the myth that the SCOTUS has the final constitutional authority to over rule any state law for any reason - as long as its masked in some constitutional law mumbo-jumbo. And anyone who disobeys their rulings can be jailed or fined.

And that's not the case.

Until American''s do something to restrain this judicial tyranny - stuff like this will happen forever. How can they do it? Its in the Constitution. Congress could pass a law tomorrow saying the Appelettle courts can't rule on cases related to gay marriage and poof that's it. Read the Constitution.

ndspinelli said...

A sharp, left leaning attorney I know says the normal route would have been for the Federal Court to find a reasonable accommodation for Davis under Title 7 w/ the EEOC. I'm telling you, this judge is conservative, this could have been a Machiavellian move on his part. The more likely scenario is it's just a Federal judge, the monarchs of their fiefdoms, showing who's boss.

chickelit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickelit said...

From the Wiki:

Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin and others[42] have compared Davis's refusal to follow court orders to Alabama Governor George Wallace's 1963 segregationist Stand in the Schoolhouse Door incident.[10][43][42] "Ms. Davis has the fundamental right to believe what she likes ... But as a public servant, she does not have the right to pick and choose which laws she will follow or which services she will provide," the Human Rights Campaign said.[39] On September 3, the Anti-Defamation League commented:

'No one should question or challenge Ms. Davis's religious beliefs. The fact that some news articles and commentators have criticized Davis's beliefs as inconsistent or hypocritical is beside the point. The bottom line is that she has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to refuse to do the job the state of Kentucky pays her to do ... If Ms. Davis or others feel that they cannot fulfill the duties they were selected to perform, they should step aside and allow others to serve the community.[44]'


You'd think that the august "Human Rights Campaign" and the "Anti-Defamation League" would have bigger fish to fry. But wasn't it Sullivan who claimed that "marriage equality" was the most important civil rights issue of our time? I certainly think that the sullivanists hope to make it so. More important than the economy...more important than immigration...more important than ISIS...more important than anything else in the whole wide world!

rcocean said...

yeah, I'm sorta of amazed at the hatred directed as someone who is just following their religion. You could throw in the fact that 7 years ago Obama said he was AGAINST gay marriage.

But so what. If you want to ruled by a lawyer name Kennedy because he has a black SCOTUS robe, you get what you deserve.

rcommal said...

That said, I do understand why so many are engaging in this particular kerfuffle.

rcommal said...

Only aayin. Just sayin'.

Aridog said...

Trooper .. I seldom disagree with you, but on this case I do. I am v-e-r-y leery of any elected official (it is not an entitlement after all) who pushes their religious agenda, even if I agree with it, on the populace who elected him or her. I agree with no reference to religion per se...I object to the semantic nonsense in the use of the term "marriage"...period. However, I've not be appointed to SCOTUS nor elected to the bench either. Priests and Ministers are not elected and may say their piece with my full support. I don't want any elected official promoting their religious beliefs whether they are Christian, Muslim or whatever. If that is their true belief, then make it v-e-r-y clear in their campaign...eg., let Ms. Davis say up front in her campaign for office "I will not sign off on any gay marriage." I don't know if she did that. I suspect I am among a growing minority on this subject. I'll end by saying if we let one religion, any religion, dictate our elected office performance we are in trouble. We are an "Nation under God" not a dictatorship by subalterns who claim to speak for God....because next just what God are we talking about.

Methadras said...

Overall, while this woman has her convictions to attend to, she honestly should simply resigned and that would have solved her problem. Her name would not have been on the certificates anymore and her convictions would remain intact, but clearly this is a power play. She wants to keep her job, get paid, and have her 1st amendment rights remain intact. This is an interesting conundrum, in that does the SCOTUS homosexual marriage decision trump her 1st amendment right to her conscience and can she be compelled to comply? We already know what happens if you are a photog or a baker, but what about a government official acting in an official capacity?

Trooper York said...

Here's the thing Ari. The woman was elected several times under Constitution of her state that explicitly prohibited same sex marriage. She does not want to participate in the celebration of sodomy that is the basis of same sex marriage. She wanted her name to be taken off of the certificates. I don't think that is an unreasonable compromise.

That is not what the gaystapo want. They are vindictive. They want to incarcerate anyone who does not bow down to them. They want to destroy businesses and the livelihood of anyone who will not agree with their agenda in every jot and tittle. They will never compromise. They will eventually legislate through the courts to the point that a clergyman who preaches against homosexuality will be incarcerated. If you think they won't then you have another thing coming. You know there is a judge somewhere who will issue an order demanding that churches perform same sex marriages. It is only a matter of time.

People who say she should resign are off base. Are you imposing a religious test for employment. Are devout Christians now to be precluded from working because of their sincerely held religious beliefs. That is what they want. Is that what you want?

Trooper York said...

If the judge wanted to remove her from office he should have used the legally mandated method. She should be impeached and removed from office. But that wouldn't happen. Because the vast majority of people in her state agree with her. That is the dirty secret of same sex marriage. There were constitutional amendments and referendums all over the place that banned same sex marriage and were overturned by the dictators of the judiciary.

If the judge would have fined her there were people who were ready to stand with her and pay her fine. If they tried to impeach her they wouldn't have the votes. So he put her in jail. HE wanted to punish her. An elected official imprisoned by a judge because of her sincerely held religious beliefs. How can anyone think that is right/

Aridog said...

Trooper ... Understand her reasoning, vis a vis state versus federal law, but don't care for her rationale. I think the same way regarding marijuana laws...I don't want the federal law ignored. In this case (Ms Davis) I want NO ONE to use religion as their litmus test for office or their performance therein. Trust me I live in a community where that could get very dicey...about 90% Muslim in my immediate neighborhood and 40% overall including Shia' and Sunni varieties. We're just fine unless someone decides to put their personal religious beliefs above the law.

I've already said I don't agree with the federal law, as judicially mandated, on personal grounds, but mainly due to semantics and pollution of the term "marriage" when there were other options if it just had to be legilated. Thus I get it that the LGBT activists demand attention and subservience if they can acquire it. I can think of a few issues where the LGBT crowd could also ignore the law and don't care for any of them...should any of them get elected I insist they follow the law as well...not that I have much to say about it.

Ms Davis was jailed for contempt of federal court, not her religious beliefs, and correctly so. She had choices that would have prevented it. I asked if anyone could cite me something where Ms. Davis stated before her election, during her campaign(s) that she'd not abide the same-sex marriage mandates of handed down....which the court handed down in June. Might not have made a difference, but I don't know that. I'd also be interested to know, since she's been elected before, just when she decided to take this course of action? CNN says it has been since she was "reborn" as a Christian. Also, was she set up by the LGBT crowd (likely)? However, it's not her call to make her "ruling" and cite faith as the reason. I'd respect her more if she'd simply cited state law. She did have that alternative...why didn't she make use of it?

This issue of one of several these days where states' laws are overruled by federal courts (some properly, others not), and on the matter of marriage, that has traditionally been a state prerogative. In short, this is no "Jim Crow" similar issue. I don't think the federal bench should over ride state laws except on sane & literal constitutional grounds. But she didn't cite state law and that is her "contempt." She had the option of making it a state's rights issue, not a "religious" one...whatever her personal privately held views are...but she didn't do that. She would likely had a majority of the states' support that way (as well). She chose poorly.

Aridog said...

Ah, and the TOP Toad arrives, almost on cue. This case has nothing to do with same sex anything, idiot, it is purely a matter of religious views, of any kind, clouding legal performance of duty activity...that and you have a poor sense of sarcasm when reading Trooper's words....of course you meant it that way. Right? Don't present any kind of argument just be a wise ass. Slow day at the TOP corral? Guess I missed it...who "alluded" to you this time?

Aridog said...

"legilated" = "legislated"

Aridog said...

"her rationale" = "her religious rationale"

Damn: Proof reading is my friend...I should try it some time.

Trooper York said...

Heres the thing. This is the camels nose under the tent. The gay activists will go shopping until they find a judge who will mandate that a church or a synagogue will have to perform a same sex marriage. Or face fines. Or the clergyman will be incarcerated. It is just another step for them.

This woman was elected under the law that same sex marriage was forbidden by the state constitution. That law was never changed. It was overridden by an unelected bare minimum majority of the Court that is imposing their religious views on everyone. Without an election. The proper way to remove Clerk Davis is by impeachment. Not by incarcerating her indefinitely to punish her for not violating her religious precepts. Note I said her religious precepts. Not mine. Not yours. Not this judge. For an unelected judge to try to dislodge a duly elected government official because of her religious beliefs is unconscionable. But that is what the Gaystapo is all about. You just saw a sniveling jack booted douche bag show up here. Their goal is stomp out religion in public life. They will let you worship and believe in your church. For now. But soon enough they will insert themselves and demand you follow the latest trend of politically correct thought. I bet the next issue is that the Church will have to allow transgenders to become nuns. Because....I don't know why. Because our country is fucked up if we allow these idiots to dictate to us. This woman is just the first of many who will be jailed because of her beliefs.

Aridog said...

Trooper ... while I agree with most all of your statements, Ms Davis is in jail because she choose to insert religion in to public service...unnecessarily. As I said, in my Muslim community, I'd prefer that not be allowed and anyone trying be jailed as well. The only alternative is ugly.

I repeat, she is not "dislodged" because of her religious beliefs, she is dislodged for non-performance of the job she sought and was elected to...she had/has a choice.

Trooper York said...

She was jailed because she sought a reasonable religious accommodation and the court insisted on enforcing its will in defiance of the Constitution of Kentucky and the people who elected Mrs. Davis to her job.

Let me put it this way. Lets say pedophilia is made legal. Not such a stretch since that is the next cause celebre right trans gender rights for dudes to pee in the girls bathroom in grammar school. I am sure NABLA is working on that right now. Now you are the county clerk and you are required to put your name on the marriage certificate so the Subway Sandwich guy can marry a toddler. Would you agree? Would you resign? Or would you try your best to fight? Even in the face of jail time.

I think she is very courageous. She is bearing witness. The forces at work will not stop here. They will work to get religious Christians out of public life. In every capacity. Comply or resign. Surrender to political correctness or lose your livelihood.

Then they will start on the churches. It is only a matter of time.

Fr Martin Fox said...

The "rule of law" only works when everyone agrees.

Otherwise, it's a sucker's game.

Which, sadly, is where we are.

In a better America. Mrs. Davis would not do what she's doing.

But, in a better America. She would never be in this situation.

I stand with Mrs. Davis.

Trooper York said...

So do I Father.

But be prepared. They are coming for you next.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Trooper:

I've said all along that the clergy were not the main target. This situation with Mrs. Davis is one more confirmation of my prediction.

Fr Martin Fox said...

And here I offer a prophylactic prediction: either Meade or R&B will show up to attack and try to silence me.

chickelit said...

So it appears that one of the lovely couples involved in this mess deliberately travelled to Davis's jurisdiction in order to target her. I predicted as much.

And these are the sorts of people that Meade admires. This assholery -- wandering around the battlefield and shooting people in the head -- is exactly why the side including Meade, Althouse, Ritmo, Cook, Sullivan...the whole shebang, will lose this battle in the long run. They know it, too.

chickelit said...

I mean, why change a heart or mind when you can put them in jail?

chickelit said...

That judge's decision to deny her bail because he thought "someone else might pay it" should, in my non-lawyer opinion, be grounds for judicial misconduct.

Does the lowliest common thug get asked who pays his bail?

Wasn't Soros offering to or implicated in bailing out many a Ferguson thug?

If I were a lawyer, I'd be jumping all over the constitutionality of what that judge did to Davis. If I were married to a constitutional law professor, I'd be asking whether that judicial move will stand up in court.

I definitely want to hear more about this case.

Trooper York said...

That was an easy call Father. It is what you would expect.

These people are vile and contemptible. Beneath our notice really.

rcommal said...

Battling hyperbole, that's what this is about, and this is why people are screaming from the ramparts and taking their hyperbole to the mats. If a few folks sprinkled across the political spectrum take principles uniquely critical to the American Experiment and throw them into the pits, why does it matter, why should it matter, at all, in these times?





rcommal said...

On another subject, point of clarification:

The woman was elected several times under Constitution of her state that explicitly prohibited same sex marriage.

Kim Davis was not elected several times to her current office. It is true that she served in the clerk's office for roughly a quarter-century prior to being elected to her current office in 2014 (which elective term she started in January of this year).

Trooper York said...

I will take your word for it as I read something different. None the less she was elected. Was the judge? Or any of the judges on the Supreme Court? Did they amend the Kentucky constitution?

I didn't think so. Who gives a shit what the voters have to say?

rcommal said...

Who gives a shit what the voters have to say?

I do, actually.

I will take your word for it as I read something different.

There is precisely -0- reason for you to take my word for it. I do not expect, at all, for you to take my word for it. In fact, I'm at the point where I'm cheering for anyone who's not willing to just take "some-person-or-another's" word for it.

It is true that I expect you to do research with regard to basic, factual claims of the sort to which I referred. I mean, this is the Internet age. It's easy to look up at least some official records, after all ... even now. ; )

Trooper York said...

I think it is a distinction without a difference. She was elected was she not? The judge was not. The Kentucky constitution banned same sex marriage. I venture to say if put to a vote it would lose in Kentucky. It would lose in a lot of places. That is why it is not put to a vote but has to rely on unelected activist judges to impose this on people who would vote against it if given the chance. That is why you will never get the chance to vote.

Even more disturbing is when people see the effect it is having on normal law abiding citizens. Turing them into criminals. Throwing them into jail without bail. Al Capone got bail. Jon Wayne Gacy got bail. John Hinkley gets prison furloughs. Yet Mrs. Davis sits in jail.

That's justice for you.

rcommal said...

Does the lowliest common thug get asked who pays his bail?

Interesting question, and I encourage you to think over the interesting question you posed.

Aridog said...

Trooper said ...

People who say she should resign are off base. Are you imposing a religious test for employment.

Wrong. Not litmus test for office holding or employment, but a discharge (or resignation) for non-performance (or inability to do so for religious reasons). Why should state laws be abrogated or revised to accommodate any individual religious position? What is next?

Aridog said...

She's being released from jail as we speak, without resolution of the main points (individual personal religious beliefs versus an elected government position)...NOW the real camel's nose is under the tent flap.

Trooper York said...

People are giving religious accommodations all the time. Orthodox Jews can wear a yarmulke. Sikhs can wear a Turban and carry a ceremonial dagger. This is about forcing religious people to forfeit their principles and worship at the altar of same sex marriage.

An accommodation can be made. That is not what is in play here.

Kim Davis will not surrender to judicial tyranny. The judge blinked because of the rally planned in her support. Lets see what happens.

Trooper York said...

The demand that she resign is in effect a "No committed Christians need apply."

Many people put up a false equivalence with other religions. For example they mention Muslims. They say "What if a Muslim clerk refused to issue liquor licenses." I think that is fine and they can find a reasonable religious accommodation. As not doubt they do in real life.

This is a power play by the forces behind same sex marriage. No more and no less.

Soon enough they will find a radical judge who will issue an order that demands that a priest or rabbi marry a same sex couple in their church. Who will stand against it? Judge Bunning? Justice Kennedy?

Don't make me laugh.

Trooper York said...

She is an elected official. Why not vacate her office by impeachment and let her run to see if she reflects the wishes of her constituents? Why not put it to a vote?

Could it be that they are afraid of a vote?

Because they would lose?

chickelit said...

rcommal said...
Interesting question, and I encourage you to think over the interesting question you posed.

I've always seen bail bond places near courthouses and I assume that they post bonds for a lot of accused criminals. It's rare to hear who pays the bondsman. I'm not sure it's ever a matter of court record if a bond intermediate is involved.

i'm glad the woman is free either because the judge had misgivings or he wanted to head off a media circus.

I repeat, I think it was a malicious and unnecessary step for the judge to have imposed that condition. It hurt everyone involved and probably only cheered a few gaystapo types.

Aridog said...

Trooper York said ...

This is a power play by the forces behind same sex marriage. No more and no less.

I agree. And Ms Davis played right in to their grubby little hands.

BTW..wearing of a religious symbol such as a yarmulke or a cross, which are easily accommodated, is not the same as citing God as a reason not to carry out your elected duties. The symbols do not impede the work of your elected office.

Aridog said...

Trooper ... that she could run for election again and win is precisely what bothers me. Anyone elected citing their religion as an aspect of their individual performance of the associated duties might be popular...until someone runs, wins, and then applies a new religious standard that the populace doesn't like. We avoid that risk by not allowing the quasi-divine-right claim in the first place.

Trooper York said...

Don't you believe in representative democracy? There is nobody who I disagree with more than Bill De Blasio. I loath everything he stands for and everything he does. But he represents the people of New York and I have to swallow it. He is the choice of the hipsters and the mutts and the limousine liberals and that's that,
.
If Clerk Davis is the choice of Kentucky then who are we to tell them different? More importantly who is an unelected judge?

If a Muslim was elected and he wanted to institute sharia law and had majority support I would support it. I would move just I plan to move from New York. The people are entitled to the government they elected. Period.

It is still America. For now.

Trooper York said...

Some people can't take a hint.

I guess since they are homebound in Madison because the mutts are on a rampage there is just nothing to do.

Sad really.

Aridog said...

Trooper .. I have promised Annie to do no more "alluding" even for topical reasons...and even if I actually don't "allude" specifically at all.

rcommal said...

chickelit:

Are you suggesting that, historically, it's not been taken into account the "who" of bail-standing (not to mention the why and how)? Not to mention as a matter of course in certain categories and places and, well, even routinely. Even today.

---

I do not intend to be insulting here, but I do mean to be pointed, quite pointed, here, chickelit:

Please think over, again, what you just wrote. Are you sure that's what you meant to say? And that you'll stand by it, full stop.

rcommal said...

Trooper York said:

... . ... If a Muslim was elected and he wanted to institute sharia law and had majority support I would support it. ...

I will surely chew over the food for thought on offer.

chickelit said...

I am suggesting that a judge not granting of bail because he'she doesn't like the potential payee has no precedent that I can find link. It's tantamount to setting no bail at all which is unreasonable. If you know otherwise, please inform. Can you imagine the kind of judicial precedent it would set? "I don't like who might bail you out, so you're staying in jail." Tyrannical, I say. Fortunately, the judicial charade/tantrum is over, not to be repeated.

Trooper York said...

I would support it in the neighborhood that has predominately Muslim population and the democratically choose it for themselves. I wouldn't live there. I wouldn't send our cops there. I wouldn't send our busybody social workers there. Same for the Orthordox Jews. The Black lives Matter crew. Build a wall and let them stew n their own juices.

I support the Ghetto. That is the way it used to work. Much better than this multiclutural bullshit. Do what you want over there and I will leave you alone if you leave me alone in my gated community.

That is the future of America. Get used to it.

Trooper York said...

It's all Tribes all the time.

Trooper York said...

Assimilation has failed. We do not haves common shared vision anymore. It is best to try and secure your own and leave the rest behind. Because the goal of the progressive elite is to force the middle class to accept what they would never accept where they live.

It's tribes all the way down.

Aridog said...

Trooper you said ...

...I will leave you alone if you leave me alone in my gated community.

Problem is the "tribes" have demonstrated proficiency at tearing down walls and gates. Nothing to plunder, physically or politically, where they originate. :D

I do fear you are correct otherwise, that this may be our future. I'm pretty old so I won't have to get used to much of it. Sorry kids.

Trooper York said...

That's the thing Ari. It is sad but true. You are a realist like me. You have seen the worst the world can offer. Well it is coming here to the good old USA. 911. Columbine. Baltimore.

We have to circle the wagons. Stay with your own kind.

rcommal said...

Trooper York, a.k.a. Savanorola? Have I, at last, for the present at least, gotten your most recent raison d'être? It's hard to keep up with you, given all the shifting that you do, and I do freely confess that, 10 years in, I've gotten pretty much no better at keeping up.

Eh, so it goes, and it is what it is, so to speak.

chickelit said...

@rcommal: You might further ask why should I care so much about what one judge does in one case. Isn't there supposed to be a way to stop clerks or government employees from selectively enforcing laws?

Trooper York said...

People change over time reader. Our experiences in life shape us and change our attitudes.


I mean I used to think you were sane.

rcommal said...

People change over time reader. Our experiences in life shape us and change our attitudes.

^ A verity shared, and grateful for that, I am.

rcommal said...

chickelit:

Here's what I had in mind at the start (and, yes, it is true that I wasn't straight-up clear on account of my hoping that you'd just get it, but now I know that you won't, on account of not wanting to, which is your right, and Lord knows, I get it):


Of course, there is precedent (linky linky irrelevant). Do you think that judges--y'know, the ones in daily-grind work, unlike,for example, SCOTUS and also, conceding at present your point, for the most part, the couple-so of levels just underneath that rarefied level--do not take into account the "who" when considering bail & etc.? Are you seriously trying to tell me that's not a normal, regular thing? And also that you're against it?

Oh, please.

rcommal said...

I mean I used to think you were sane.

Oh, Trooper. I doubt that, pilgrim. And for good reason.

chickelit said...

Do you think that judges--y'know, the ones in daily-grind work, unlike,for example, SCOTUS and also, conceding at present your point, for the most part, the couple-so of levels just underneath that rarefied level--do not take into account the "who" when considering bail & etc.?

I've heard of bail being set arbitrarily high for some cases because the accused was considered a flight risk. his woman was denied bail at all which is tantamount to an arbitrarily high amount. This woman was not a flight risk in my opinion.

The judge said essentially "I don't like who might bail you out, so I won't set one." It reminded me of the "gofundme" people who denied access to someone they disagreed with politically.