Should Kim Davis pay her legal fees?

[MillCreek]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentucky-governor-says-kim-davis-should-pay-legal-fees-in-same-sex-marriage-case/

I think not. She was acting as a governmental employee, and as such, the employer should be vicariously liable for her actions.  I think claiming that an employee's actions were illegal or were outside the scope of their employment should be interpreted very narrowly, lest employers use that as a convenient excuse to escape liability.  In this case, I am neutral as to if the State or the County should pay, but I am leaning toward whichever government entity issued her paycheck.  If she was paid by the State, the State should pick up the legal fees; if she was paid by the County, the County should pick up the legal fees.

[Perd Hapley]

Certain justices of the Supreme Court should take care of that bill.

[BlueStarLizzard]

It's your employee, it's your dime.

*shrug* The whole point of why what she did was wrong was because she was forcing her personal views in her professional capacity and as a representative of her employer. Which means she gets fired (because bad employee is bad employee) and the employer has to deal with the fall out.

[Perd Hapley]

She wasn't fired. She held an elected office, and served out her term. She was jailed for contempt of court during part of that term.

She did what every non-crazy American should have done. She refused to go along with social justice warrior nonsense.

[Hawkmoon]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kentucky-governor-says-kim-davis-should-pay-legal-fees-in-same-sex-marriage-case/

I think not. She was acting as a governmental employee, and as such, the employer should be vicariously liable for her actions.  I think claiming that an employee's actions were illegal or were outside the scope of their employment should be interpreted very narrowly, lest employers use that as a convenient excuse to escape liability.  In this case, I am neutral as to if the State or the County should pay, but I am leaning toward whichever government entity issued her paycheck.  If she was paid by the State, the State should pick up the legal fees; if she was paid by the County, the County should pick up the legal fees.

I respectfully disagree. She was not precisely a "government employee." She was an elected public official, whose duties were prescribed by law. She chose not to do her legal duty. I don't think the taxpayers should be held accountable because she chose to fall on that particular sword.

I think I have commented previously that, as a justice of the peace, I face the same dilemma. Ten years ago, when I asked if I would be required to marry same-sex couples, the guidance from the state was "No, not if it violates your religious beliefs." Six years ago, the guidance had changed to "Yes." Two years ago, the guidance remained at "Yes." Consequently, my position is that I will remain a JP as long as I can, but if the day comes when I am asked to perform a same-sex wedding I will resign my commission.

[MechAg94]

I would be curious what the precedent is for other elected officials have had to do when sued.  They elected her, they can deal with the consequences.  However, I think she should have just resigned. 

[Perd Hapley]

I respectfully disagree. She was not precisely a "government employee." She was an elected public official, whose duties were prescribed by law. She chose not to do her legal duty. I don't think the taxpayers should be held accountable because she chose to fall on that particular sword.

She did what she was elected to do. The election was held before the Supreme Court decision.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Since she was elected, the taxpayers *are* her employers. I think that puts them in the hot seat on this.

[T.O.M.]

In my experience,  if an elected official is sued in direct relation to the position, a government attorney will provide representation at no costs.  If the suit is for something outside of the position, official has to get private counsel and eat the bill. 

[Firethorn]

She wasn't fired. She held an elected office, and served out her term. She was jailed for contempt of court during part of that term.

She did what every non-crazy American should have done. She refused to go along with social justice warrior nonsense.

First, I think she went beyond what "every non-crazy American should have done".  Non-crazy americans would have, I think, done things a bit less.  If nothing else it isn't "crazy" to avoid spending time in jail on contempt of court charge.

Second, I view what she was doing was executing state contracts, more than religious marriage.  The state gets to set the rules in that case, not the religion of the employees.  How would you handle an employee that, say, insisted that only people of the same religion get married?  IE no christian-muslim marriages?  Atheists can't get married?  Etc...?

The government needs to act in an agnostic fashion, and she prevented that.  Like it or not, there are religions out there that are fine with gay marriage.  Her refusing to fill out the government paperwork to have the government recognize their marriage is a violation, I believe.

Third, this leads into that she not only didn't do them herself, she refused to have the employees under her do them either.  If she'd allowed that, it would be no worse than the grocery store where the teen employee needs to go get an older one to sell cigarettes.  The *office* could still have performed its state mandated duties and it wouldn't have become a national news story.

A sane American would have done one of basically 3 things:
1.  Follow the court order and issue gay marriage certificates.  She doesn't have to approve of the unions, merely ensure that they meet state regulations.
2.  Have somebody else more willing issue the certificates. 
3.  Resign.

[Jamisjockey]

First, I think she went beyond what "every non-crazy American should have done".  Non-crazy americans would have, I think, done things a bit less.  If nothing else it isn't "crazy" to avoid spending time in jail on contempt of court charge.

Second, I view what she was doing was executing state contracts, more than religious marriage.  The state gets to set the rules in that case, not the religion of the employees.  How would you handle an employee that, say, insisted that only people of the same religion get married?  IE no christian-muslim marriages?  Atheists can't get married?  Etc...?

The government needs to act in an agnostic fashion, and she prevented that.  Like it or not, there are religions out there that are fine with gay marriage.  Her refusing to fill out the government paperwork to have the government recognize their marriage is a violation, I believe.

Third, this leads into that she not only didn't do them herself, she refused to have the employees under her do them either.  If she'd allowed that, it would be no worse than the grocery store where the teen employee needs to go get an older one to sell cigarettes.  The *office* could still have performed its state mandated duties and it wouldn't have become a national news story.

A sane American would have done one of basically 3 things:
1.  Follow the court order and issue gay marriage certificates.  She doesn't have to approve of the unions, merely ensure that they meet state regulations.
2.  Have somebody else more willing issue the certificates. 
3.  Resign.

all of this.

She was an elected official and defied a just state law.  She should foot the bill herself.

[T.O.M.]

In my opinion, for what it is worth, what she should have done is when this all came to light, and she was ordered to issue the licenses, she should have very publicly stated that the state of the law and the court order would require her to do acts contrary to her personal beliefs, and as such resigned from her position.

[230RN]

In my opinion, for what it is worth, what she should have done is when this all came to light, and she was ordered to issue the licenses, she should have very publicly stated that the state of the law and the court order would require her to do acts contrary to her personal beliefs, and as such resigned from her position.

And of course, depending on the numbers of people involved, personal beliefs are what cause wars and terrorism and road rage and such.  

I think she should be liable for her own legal fees.  

I myself do not see what business it is of the State who partners with whom or who's on top except for financial, child care, some legal matters, and resolution of these issues after a dissolution.  

Apparently Kentucky and a few other States agree with me, at least in part.  I especially do not see under what Constitutional provision the United States Government should be defining "marriage."  That's embarking on an inclined plane with a low coefficient of friction.

Terry, 230RN

 

[Firethorn]

all of this.

She was an elected official and defied a just state law.  She should foot the bill herself.

Been mulling on this for a while.  She should pay her lawyer fees because she made it all about herself, her beliefs, her religion, not the position. She was refusing to do her job, and let others do their job, because of what were very obviously personally held beliefs.

Apparently Kentucky and a few other States agree with me, at least in part.  I especially do not see under what Constitutional provision the United States Government should be defining "marriage."  That's embarking on an inclined plane with a low coefficient of friction.

The way I look at it, a government 'marriage' is a contract.  The government has an interest in it because of the issues you describe.  As such, it has to define who can enter into one.  At this point I'm at informed consenting competent adult.  Man and woman not necessary.

[Boomhauer]

If you don’t like the job leave it. I don’t get to pick and choose what aspects of my job to do. I didn’t get to pick and choose what to enforce or not when I was a park ranger. I didn’t get to choose what orders to follow back then either.

[BlueStarLizzard]

all of this.

She was an elected official and defied a just state law.  She should foot the bill herself.

An election is just another form of a job interview. She was "hired" by the people who voted for her.

[230RN]

Then let the locals change their local law... except there's probably State pre-emption in matters like that.  Which she should either follow or resign.

Which is back to where we started.

And of course that starts the argument about large cities dominating local / rural politics and large States dominating national politics.

'Tis a puzzlement.

[Ron]

I have no problem with her actions as judge.

She chose to make a very public statement on the issue and endured the consequences.

Certainly I can understand why the Satanic and evil, in our government and populace, wouldn’t want to have to pay for her legal counsel, they are opposed to her at every level.

If the government doesn’t pay I suspect she has benefactors who will help her out.

More and more things are coming to a point and people have to choose evil or good.

It is a good thing that the lines are getting clearer.

[Hawkmoon]

Certainly I can understand why the Satanic and evil, in our government and populace, wouldn’t want to have to pay for her legal counsel, they are opposed to her at every level.

I'm afraid I have to object to being labeled as "Satanic and evil."

Luke 20:25:

“And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.”

She was elected to a civil (secular) office. Her job was to do as Caesar (the government, the civil laws) dictated, not to impose her view of morality onto people who were seeking administrative services in complete accordance with Caesar's (the government's) laws. She has every right to her views of morality -- outside of her office. What she does not have a right to do is to bring her religious views into the office and use them as a reason/excuse to refuse people the services to which they are entitled.

I've already mentioned my status as a justice of the peace. I am opposed to same sex marriage. IMHO it's unnatural, and it violates Holy Scripture. But as a JP I'm a civil official, not a cleric. As a cleric, I could decline to perform a same-sex marriage on the grounds that it's a violation of my religious beliefs. As a JP, I don't have that freedom. So, if I am ever asked to perform a same-sex marriage as a JP, I will have to resign my commission.

Which is what she should have done.

Actually, she had a much simpler recourse -- she could have allowed others in her office to issue the license. But she refused to allow the entire office to perform its function. That's indefensible.

Also, let's remember that she (and her staff) were not asked to perform the marriage. They were only asked to issue the license. That's a purely administrative function.

[WLJ]

^^^^^
What he said

[Ron]

Some are evil and some are deceived.

Conservatives have lost the country “on principle”.

Few have done more to further the progressive agenda than the dupes on the right.

The right is no match for the subtlety of the left.

The country will go down the shitter but at least the dunce caps on the right “followed the rules”.

If you want to keep being a loser keep following the queensberry rules while engaged in a knife fight.

Who has continuously usurped legitimate authority and imposed their will on the people?

The people make their will known and the courts rule oppositely.

Who is more legitimate?

[dogmush]

Who has continuously usurped legitimate authority and imposed their will on the people?

The people make their will known and the courts rule oppositely.

Who is more legitimate?

Those questions are pretty telling, both that you asked them, and that you think you know the answer.

As to the people vs. The courts.....I suspect neither, but probably the courts are more legitimate.  Simply because a bunch of people agree on something doesn't make it right or just.

I'll not Godwin the thread, but a very cursory reading of history will show that "the people" are often convinced of things that are wrong, stupid, and even downright evil.

That's not a litmus I would use for legitimacy.

[Ron]

What is telling is how many on the so called right are now outing themselves as nothing more than garden variety leftists.

What are you going to say when judges start ruling the age of consent laws are an infringement on your children’s/grandchildren’s rights?

There really isn’t a republican right or really any mainstream conservative movement in the USA.

Just many grey shades of leftist confusion.

- edited for clarity-

[dogmush]

There's a conservative movement Ron. You're just not in it.

[Ron]

There's a conservative movement Ron. You're just not in it.

You guys have conserved nothing.