I think I understand Kevin's argument from his last post better than I did
before, but I still disagree with it. Let me check my understanding of his
position. Suppose Kentucky adopted an accommodation which it described in a
sign that was to be posted in each county clerk's office.
"Pursuant
*
Paul Finkelman
Senior Fellow
Penn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism
University of Pennsylvania
and
Scholar-in-Residence
National Constitution Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
518-439-7296 (p)
518-605-0296 (c)
paul.finkel
I don’t think she’s in violation. She has not prevented the deputies from
issuing marriage licenses. Marty does not say that she has ordered them,
threatened them, penalized them, or even verbally discouraged them from issuing
licenses. I would read “in any way” to refer to the means of interfer
This is extremely helpful, thanks, Doug. A couple of reactions:
1. First, Davis clearly is in flat violation of the judge's order of 9/11,
which stated that "Defendant Davis *shall not interfere in any way,
directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue
marriage licenses
Chip et al. — Perhaps events on the ground have overtaken all of this. Still
worth thinking about to figure out how better to deal with similar events in
the future. For responsive points, see comments below in brackets. The gist is
that if “Davis to Mason” is constitutional, then “Davis to Mas
I finally looked at the court’s orders, provoked in part by someone asking
whether today’s marriage license is in compliance. The answer is that it is
hard to tell, but I think she is in compliance. It is hard to tell because none
of his orders have made the slightest effort to comply with Feder
Fair enough, but going forward does everyone in this County have to go through
the courts in the future to have their marriage secured? And what happens with
the next Kim Davis is in some other agency, probate, the agency that deals with
child custody, or a hospital, and says “no valid marriage
Aren’t good faith inquiries the inevitable consequence if, in adjudicating
claimed state or federal RFRA exemptions from compliance with generally
applicable law, courts must:
1. Accept without review the claimant’s determination that compliance
substantially burdens religious exercise; a
It will make the license a collector’s item.
Eugene
From: James Oleske [mailto:jole...@lclark.edu]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 9:15 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: Volokh, Eugene; Dellinger, Walter; Douglas Laycock; Howard Wasserman;
conlawp.
The license for the first couple (nonplaintiffs Carmen and Shannon
Wampler-Collins) reads:
"*Issued this 9/14/2015* [crossed out: "in the office of , ___
(blanks for "name" and "county")"] *Pursuant to Federal Court Order No.
15-CY-44, DLB,* [crossed out: "County Clerk"]* Morehead, K
Sorry -- "deposition" in the message below should be "preliminary
injunction hearing." - Jim
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:14 AM, James Oleske wrote:
> Update:
>
> Unlike the licenses previously issued by deputy clerk Brian Mason to
> same-sex couples, which included "in the office of Rowan County,"
Update:
Unlike the licenses previously issued by deputy clerk Brian Mason to
same-sex couples, which included "in the office of Rowan County," the
license he issued this morning has the words "in the office of" crossed out
and the language "Pursuant to the Federal Court Order" in the place where
o
Correction to my message from a few minutes ago -- it was Michael Masinter
(not Marty Lederman) who invoked, on a related thread on this list, the
quotation "l'etat c'est moi" in reference to Kim Davis.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Ira Lupu wrote:
> Why would Judge Bunning (not) order the w
Why would Judge Bunning (not) order the work-around that Kevin suggests?
It would reasonably accommodate Kim Davis, Kevin says, with no harm to
others.
With respect, Kevin --
1. Davis' position seems to be that her Office (not just her person) is a
"person" protected by Kentucky RFRA (the only l
summarizing:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/09/kim-davis-developments.html
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Marty Lederman
wrote:
> She stated that she has ordered that the licenses issued by the Deputies
> will not include her name *or title or "authority" *[not clear what that
> means, since
She stated that she has ordered that the licenses issued by the Deputies
will not include her name *or title or "authority" *[not clear what that
means, since the form doesn't mention her "authority" in the first place],
and that the licenses will bear the notation "Issued pursuant to a federal
cou
Kevin asks whether I think the status quo in Rowan County right now
violates the Equal Protection Clause or the Establishment Clause because
Davis's name is--quite conspicuously--omitted from the forms.
Answer: No, I don't.
Whereas I think that requiring couples to drive to the next county over
17 matches
Mail list logo
