(Untitled)

[typewriterking]

If I were governor of Kentucky, I would pardon the homely arrested lady. Even though I've thought pardons should be abolished ever since Clinton sold them for cash.

Discuss? 

Comments

[dexeron]

My own opinions about this particular case aside, since she hasn't been convicted of a crime, and is being held under civil contempt, I'm not sure if the governor has the power to issue a pardon. It's possible, but I know that at least in some jurisdictions pardon isn't allowed for instances of civil contempt. I don't know how Kentucky works, and the way pardon works at the State level varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

[pathology_doc]

A link to the source (or at least a source) would be helpful for people who for many legitimate reasons aren't following your particular news sources/feeds as closely as you are.

[typewriterking]

I'm pretty confident everybody knows about Kim Davis by now.

[pathology_doc]

Um... nope. Take nothing for granted outside your own borders.

[kharmii]

[dexeron]

The difference being, the Sheriff in this case was enforcing the broader state law, and (at least claimed to be) cleaning up the (again, claimed) improper prior issuance of permits. The Clerk, on the other hand, was ignoring the law in favor of personal opinions

[kharmii]

Unlike SSM, the right to bear arms is an actual right guaranteed by the constitution. Why no media outrage over 7,000 people being discriminated against over an illegal state law? -Because it's not convenient to leftists, of course!

[kharmii]

Some Facebook brilliance over this issue from this morning:

Turn your heads, gay marriage supporters. We know you don't have the courage or integrity to read this

[dexeron]

That rant would be more sensible if Kim Davis were actually being punished for practicing her "freedom of association or religion or anything else mentioned in the First Amendment or Second Amendment." She isn't. She is being held in contempt (jail instead of fines because others are paying her fines and thus fines are not properly coercive in nature) for failing to obey the court's order, given in response to her losing a suit, filed because standing was granted, granted because injury-in-fact was established. Even Lindsey Graham gets this. It's not a religious freedom matter. It's an "obeying the law" matter

[theidolhands]

Well said.

[kharmii]

The law only means something when it benefits the left. We should be up in arms over the supreme court illegally rewriting the constitution, yet we are only at the point where one brave soul rebels peacefully.