[Fast Moving Angel]

Thanks, Jim. With all the reading I've done on this, there's something I still don't understand. It hasn't been addressed anywhere and if I were her attorney, I’d be all over it.

Her position is that of an elected official, which means she can’t be fired – she can only be impeached. OK, fine.

When she ran for (and was elected to) her position, she ran under the premise that her job involved a certain set of parameters, duties she had to perform, responsibilities she had to assume, that sort of thing. That set of parameters changed when SCOTUS allowed same-sex marriages (assuming that Kentucky law is the same).

So they changed the rules of the game on her and she’s refusing to work under the new rules because they violate her conscience. I’m betting if these rules were in place when she ran for her position, she wouldn’t have run for the position because she would not have approved these licenses. Her beliefs haven’t changed, the parameters changed and she's being punished for it.

First Amendment considerations aside, she should NOT be in jail. At the very worst, all the court should rightfully have done is order impeachment proceedings, or possibly a special election for the people to vote her out (which I'm betting wouldn't happen).

[Jim Robinson]

Great points.

[generally]

Great post.

One of the reasons I come to FR is for the great thinkers putting out logical ideas. Often ideas that no one else has considered.

Thanks for the great post. You’ve given us more to think about.

[NetAddicted]

She can’t be fired, but can she quit?

[P-Marlowe]

At the very worst, all the court should rightfully have done is order impeachment proceedings, or possibly a special election for the people to vote her out (which I'm betting wouldn't happen).

Boy you really want to grant additional powers to an out of control judiciary?

Courts do not have the authority to order impeachment proceedings or special elections. Why would you even think they should consider that?

[EBH]

Actually, the very items you point out are the WHY he held her in contempt, because if he did the other two...We the People would have had a platform against an out of control judiciary

[HKMk23]

That’s an EXCELLENT take on this. I’d go further to push to the fore what it seems has NOT been made a featured point in this discussion: Kim Davis, and every other Clerk in Kentucky, has no new codified working parameters until the KY State Legislature enacts them. She’s — essentially — being shaken over Hell on the end of a rotted stick because she’s refused to “wing it”; deferring, instead, to the Legislature, as well she should.