The Sixth Circuit rejected the appeal of the former Kentucky county clerk who was sued after she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Davis is far from a vexatious litigant in the technical sense, but it's ridiculous to me that this case continues, and I'm convinced that it does in large part bc of two factors:
1) She isn't paying for any of this. The right wing has made her a martyr and fully funded her case no matter how many billable hours it racks up. Moreover, when it finally ends, I am personally convinced (without having looked at any particular financial facts) that her cries of martyrdom will be enough to ensure that anything she is forced to disburse won't come from her own pockets, but from fascist donors who hate queers and thank her for her attacks on a hated minority.
2) Like many if not all of her donors, she feels positively about the pain she causes in prolonging the suit. She wants to continue the suit bc she wants to stab queers in the heart again and again and again. The cruelty is the point of her appeal.
If there are other factors -- one might be honest hope that her suit would be used to overturn Obergefel, even though it seems the wrong legal vehicle to do so -- they count for little when compared to these first two.
Ok tbh I’ve never heard of Kim Davis so I looked her up. She def reminds me of Kari Lake, an anti democratic woman who’s been sued and lost but keeps coming back but refuses to give up. Here’s to hoping Davis goes down in flames like Lake did.
They will have many, much cleaner shots at Obergefell than this mess affords. I think she could have sought cert. on QI the first time and didn’t; that should end it.
Allowing QI on the basis that the defendant’s “clearly established” obligation might some day be overturned would make the immunity pretty much absolute.
So hundreds of federal agents can screw the country over with a seditious Russia hoax, but a constitutional right exists (because gay marriage lost twice when it was on the ballot)?
And Muslim truck drivers were compensated for NOT delivering alcohol as part of their job? Too bad there isn’t a pattern here…
.an example of how the people continue to squander and waste their taxpayer-funded resources - this type of case should be decided by a local 'panel of citizens' / tribunal with right of appeal limited to cases where a tribunal decision could be 'patently unreasonable', thus freeing the courts to handle serious health, civil, and criminal matters - so inefficient and wasteful that so many 'regulatory offenses' are seen as criminal.
The Supreme Court has often refused to entertain arguments not preserved below.
Although not true in a 1983 context, the Respect for Marriage Act might mean no one would have standing to raise overruling Obergefel because such a ruling couldn’t meet the redressability prong.
Davis is far from a vexatious litigant in the technical sense, but it's ridiculous to me that this case continues, and I'm convinced that it does in large part bc of two factors:
1) She isn't paying for any of this. The right wing has made her a martyr and fully funded her case no matter how many billable hours it racks up. Moreover, when it finally ends, I am personally convinced (without having looked at any particular financial facts) that her cries of martyrdom will be enough to ensure that anything she is forced to disburse won't come from her own pockets, but from fascist donors who hate queers and thank her for her attacks on a hated minority.
2) Like many if not all of her donors, she feels positively about the pain she causes in prolonging the suit. She wants to continue the suit bc she wants to stab queers in the heart again and again and again. The cruelty is the point of her appeal.
If there are other factors -- one might be honest hope that her suit would be used to overturn Obergefel, even though it seems the wrong legal vehicle to do so -- they count for little when compared to these first two.
At least in my NSH opinion.
Kim: Goldarned gays—back in the closet with you! I gonna hold my breath until all a youse get back in there!
Obergefell was "far from unanimous"? That has to be one of the dumbest sentences I've seen from an opinion in a while.
Ok tbh I’ve never heard of Kim Davis so I looked her up. She def reminds me of Kari Lake, an anti democratic woman who’s been sued and lost but keeps coming back but refuses to give up. Here’s to hoping Davis goes down in flames like Lake did.
I'm betting that her ultra conservative lawyers were planning for a SCOTUS hearing in light of the current court's willingness to smash settled law.
😂😂👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
She must be very well funded to go on and on. I didn't realize this case was still kicking around.
I didn't either.
It’s hard to be a poor ignorant bigot these days.
Alito and Thomas are salivating at the thought of overturning Obergefell. Trolls gonna troll.
They will have many, much cleaner shots at Obergefell than this mess affords. I think she could have sought cert. on QI the first time and didn’t; that should end it.
Allowing QI on the basis that the defendant’s “clearly established” obligation might some day be overturned would make the immunity pretty much absolute.
Very good point
So hundreds of federal agents can screw the country over with a seditious Russia hoax, but a constitutional right exists (because gay marriage lost twice when it was on the ballot)?
And Muslim truck drivers were compensated for NOT delivering alcohol as part of their job? Too bad there isn’t a pattern here…
.an example of how the people continue to squander and waste their taxpayer-funded resources - this type of case should be decided by a local 'panel of citizens' / tribunal with right of appeal limited to cases where a tribunal decision could be 'patently unreasonable', thus freeing the courts to handle serious health, civil, and criminal matters - so inefficient and wasteful that so many 'regulatory offenses' are seen as criminal.
Thanks as always for the analysis Chris!
The Supreme Court has often refused to entertain arguments not preserved below.
Although not true in a 1983 context, the Respect for Marriage Act might mean no one would have standing to raise overruling Obergefel because such a ruling couldn’t meet the redressability prong.
I'm smarter each time I read your post's Chris, you're Brilliant, Thank You, and will reStack ASAP 💯👍🇺🇸
How soon are we going to get an explainer on the DC Circuit decision on Dellinger?