She took office in November 2014. At that time the Winsor-Case was already one year old, and Obergefell worked it's way up to the supreme court. It was obvious that some ruling would be implemented, she had to know that this could happen. Still she took office, and talked to no one about it.
The next president comes in and wants some pulled pork sammiches.
Well, she hasn't given any other indication that she would stand out, intellectually or morally speaking, in a box of corn flakes. And even total idiots have the right to due process.
.... which, of course, she got.
I submit that armed vigilante bands have rarely improved any situation, though I know I'll upset the armchair Maoists in doing so. I base this judgment on the fact that we have tried them often enough and the results are almost perfectly disastrous. Sometimes they're even disastrous for the cause the the vigilantes support, though in a way that's a recommendation for the rest of us. Sometimes they have their successes, which are calamitous by design. I don't think we've been improved much by those experiments. Indeed, some guy noticed a while back that they're actively corrosive even if their effects appear good in the short term.
In this, he anticipated a major point of Pauline Maier's classic work Popular Uprisings in Eighteenth-Century America, which is well worth the price of getting a used copy of the collection it's in if you can't get it through a library or something. If you want to argue the legitimacy of mob action with reference to eighteenth century British North America, you've got to read her to know why mobs came into fashion and why they went out.
I submit that armed vigilante bands have rarely improved any situation, though I know I'll upset the armchair Maoists in doing so. I base this judgment on the fact that we have tried them often enough and the results are almost perfectly disastrous. Sometimes they're even disastrous for the cause the the vigilantes support...
Oh, absolutely. I'm not entirely sure that Stewart Rhodes and the Oathkeepers understand the magnitude of what they're dealing with here.
As I understand it, his statements to the press have already convicted him (and the members of his organization) of conspiracy to violate 18 U.S. Code § 111 (a)(1), which is good for a year in the can. If anyone shows up, it stops being a conspiracy. If they show up with a weapon, it's no longer (a)(1), but (b) which is good for a twenty-spot. And if anyone dies, it's life, or the death penalty.
There's also a good chance (again, as I understand it) that the entire organization could be dragged down under either domestic terrorism laws or RICO. And if they're shooting at Federal marshals, I see no reason to assume that the Justice Department or the Federal Courts will see any reason to play nicely with them.
Well, they're confident because they've gotten away with it before.
As I understand it, his statements to the press have already convicted him (and the members of his organization) of conspiracy to violate 18 U.S. Code § 111 (a)(1), which is good for a year in the can. If anyone shows up, it stops being a conspiracy. If they show up with a weapon, it's no longer (a)(1), but (b) which is good for a twenty-spot. And if anyone dies, it's life, or the death penalty.There's also a good chance (again, as I understand it) that the entire organization could be dragged down under either domestic terrorism laws or RICO. And if they're shooting at Federal marshals, I see no reason to assume that the Justice Department or the Federal Courts. will see any reason to play nicely with them.
I'd forgotten that. RICO it is, then, definitely.
CaptainGemini, on a flippant level you're right. But there are differences. That was much more arguably a defensive effort. The colonists/revolutionaries announced themselves. There weren't precedents of peaceful efforts working. The colonists didn't have the rights available it them that Clerk Davis and the Oath keepers have.
So I was thinking about making that same point, but it's worth pointing out that it's too clever by half.
Now, let's see how ninjaed I am.
Edit: Answer: very. So much so that Samnell subtly did so in his post. Well played, sir.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will admit that I am somewhat biased on the subject of hating police-state, big government modern America. Even the smallest hint of government crackdown, in most scenarios, makes me ready to Mighty Rage and swing a +7 Vorpal, Flaming Burst, Speed Mac Truck of Wounding (And yes, I know the rules contradictions!).
After looking into the situation further, I see that she WAS proffered the chance to remove her name in full from the documents. In that case, she IS being a stubborn bigot.
So, because it's the upright thing to do, I will formally say that, yes, she DID abuse her position of power, now that all the facts are in place and, yes, a temporary amount of jail time WAS a better option than the worse sentence that is normally imposed by defying a court order.
I still, of course, hold to my opinion about the government and most of it's components, because there is WAY too much abuse to simply overlook.
I am curious, of course, why some of the Oath Keepers would back this. I believe that, although a few may be bigots (Every organization has at least a few), most simply do not see the fact that I missed, since most news organizations are grossly bare of details surrounding this particular facet of the case.
Regarding RICO, that law has the potential for more abuse than not. It stinks of 'plant a saboteur in a problem organization, cause some crap, convict everyone who opposes us' type tactics. I believe there are a few cases where this actually happened.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding RICO, that law has the potential for more abuse than not. It stinks of 'plant a saboteur in a problem organization, cause some crap, convict everyone who opposes us' type tactics. I believe there are a few cases where this actually happened.
Possibly. If you're the sort of dumb f--k who lets himself be convinced by a saboteur to commit illegal acts, though, my sympathy is somewhat limited. The proper response to "Hey, let's go form an armed mob and interfere with federal marshals in violation of 18 U.S. Code §111 (a)(1)!" is and always should be "No, let's not. Are you crazy?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Possibly. If you're the sort of dumb f--k who lets himself be convinced by a saboteur to commit illegal acts, though, my sympathy is somewhat limited. The proper response to "Hey, lets go form an armed mob and interfere with federal marshals in violation of 18 U.S. Code §111 (a)(1)!" is and always should be "No, let's not. Are you crazy?"
No, I meant the saboteurs themselves committing the act and claiming that it was the organization, then disappearing into the shadows once the organization catches the blame for it. It doesn't apply in this case, but it does in a few others.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the main difference between the two is... the RSVP? :)
No, the timing.
First, we sit down like reasonable human beings and try to resolve our differences.
And this is how we reasonably decided that we should reasonable have slaves count as 3/5ths of a person instead of very unreasonably freeing them.
Law and consensus are only as good as the people making them. By all means, this woman needs to be fired and hit in the face with a cream pie on the way out, but don't pretend that the vast majority of people wouldn't support her tactics and determination if they agreed with her position, or vice versa. Her adherence to or defiance of the law is pretty irrelevant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Armed vigilantes are great.. when they agree with you.
Armed government that can enforce laws is great... when the law agrees with you.
Which is why the law brings in armed thugs only as a last resort, to minimize the possibility of armed conflict.
The process server who brings you a subpoena probably doesn't even carry a gun. The judge who hears your case likewise. If it gets to the point where you're dealing with guys with holsters on their hips, things have already gone dreadfully wrong; if you see anyone actually carrying a weapon around, you're in serious trouble.
The Oathbreakers terrorist militia seem to want to jump straight to DEFCON 4.
I hope their ill-advised actions don't result in anyone getting hurt. Not even them, and certainly not anyone who isn't in blatant and violent violation of Federal law.
You're right, except DEFCON 4 isn't all that high. i think you wanted DEFCON 2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's the case where he recommends reading Pauline Maier's classic work Popular Uprisings in Eighteenth-Century America.
Quite. I thought I'd written up a thumbnail sketch, but looks like I managed to edit that away. Way to go, me.
Maier argues that 18th century mobs almost universally acted in conjunction with and often led by local elites and acted routinely to supply deficiencies in Imperial government. Or to put it plainly, the colonists often weren't getting enough government attention, or found imperial government too slow and unresponsive, and so under the leadership of local elites they would go out and do the job. This occasionally included tax protests, but there's actually quite a lot of things like setting up smallpox quarantines and, if I recall the article right, even building roads. A mob would be got up for that kind of thing, do the job, and then disperse. The circumstance was hardly ordinary, but the event itself had a clear order. It wasn't a bunch of random yahoos with guns who assigned themselves roles as constitutional arbiters so much as the leading men of the community directing their social subordinates.
Eighteenth century America might have been egalitarian by European standards, and somewhat freer with the franchise, but that still left plenty of room for it to be exactly that hierarchical. It wasn't until around the turn of the century that your employer became "boss" instead of "master."
Mobs fell out of fashion as soon as it became clear that the state was aligned with local elites and sufficiently responsive to their will, as well as constituted to handle redress to their satisfaction. This process generally progressed at a slight lag behind the advance of the American constitutional movement. So 18th century mobs should be understood not as necessarily a check on government but far more often a practical, if unofficial adjunct to it. Wildcat mobs often prompted the same local elites that a decade or two before would have led a mob themselves to call out the militia for its suppression.
Maier concerned herself with the 18th century, but I think her observations generally hold for later outbreaks of mob violence. Kansas Border Ruffians, for example, justified themselves in essentially Maier's terms. So did the classic lynch mob. In fact, lynching declined essentially as the modern police state rose up with its more sophisticated, thoroughgoing means of racial control. The formal state had fallen somewhat out of alignment with local elites, so they turned to mobs. During the transition, you had situations where the police would apprehend someone imagined to have violated Jim Crow norms (guilt never entered into it) and then turn him over to a mob at a scheduled time. Thus you get headlines boasting that three thousand gathered to burn so and so alive at the proper time on the courthouse lawn.
We can make the argument that our local insurrectionists fit into that tradition too. They certainly understand themselves that way. But the complaints match reality infinitely less than those of the under-governed of British North America did. In either event, they face the same problem as Lincoln highlighted as a young man and which, incidentally, I'm studying the process of as played out in the Territory of Kansas.
Personally? I think you need a lot more than routine functions inherent in and indispensable in some form to every legal system to justify so much as a verbal protest, let alone armed men. I'd place the minimum bar for that at least to the point that free soil Kansans faced in 1855 (flagrant election fraud gave them a government that then proceeded to force on them a high-handed and oppressive slave code that literally outlawed antislavery speech, combined with quite a bit of freelance violence and threats thereof, up to and including one from a former senator to genocide antislavery whites out of Kansas, to keep Kansans from their own polls and suppress dissent against slavery) to think about stockpiling arms. Kim Davis makes for a viciously, insultingly poor imitation of John Brown, Nat Turner, Gabriel Prosser, or Denmark Vesey.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Law and consensus are only as good as the people making them. By all means, this woman needs to be fired and hit in the face with a cream pie on the way out, but don't pretend that the vast majority of people wouldn't support her tactics and determination if they agreed with her position, or vice versa. Her adherence to or defiance of the law is pretty irrelevant.
Well, it's not her tactics I was commenting on with respect to armed thugs, but the Oathbreakers. And I don't think I need to pretend.
Do you remember how, when the 6th Circuit decided that gay marriage would remain illegal in Ohio, Michigan, etc., the armed mobs stormed the county courthouse in Flint, MI, and forced the issuance of same-sex marriages at gunpoint? No, neither do I, because that didn't happen. The supporters of same-sex marriage respected the rule of law and appealed the decision to the SCOTUS.
Do you remember how, when the Lakewood, CO, bakery refused to make a cake for a same sex couple, the supporters of same-sex marriage kidnapped the baker's children and didn't release them until a cake was baked? No, neither do I, because that didn't happen. The supporters of same-sex marriage respected the rule of law and simply filed amicus briefs in the lawsuit against the bakery.
Do you remember how, when the Rowan County clerk refused to issue marriage licenses, she was dragged from her office by a rainbow-colored mob and beaten into a coma? No, neither do I, because that didn't happen. The supporters of same-sex marriage respected the rule of law and filed suit -- as it happens, in the same circuit that had earlier denied that gay marriage would remain illegal, and this time both the district court and the appeals court ruled against her.
Oathkeepers, right-wing terrorists that they are, are openly declaring armed rebellion against the Federal government (if you think they aren't, look up "rebellion"). I know of no corresponding left-wing organization of comparable scope. I reject your false equivalence, and need not "pretend to" anything to do so.
I dunno. I can name at least one case where it turned out rather well.I submit that armed vigilante bands have rarely improved any situation, though I know I'll upset the armchair Maoists in doing so. I base this judgment on the fact that we have tried them often enough and the results are almost perfectly disastrous. Sometimes they're even disastrous for the cause the the vigilantes support, though in a way that's a recommendation for the rest of us. Sometimes they have their successes, which are calamitous by design. I don't think we've been improved much by those experiments. Indeed, some guy noticed a while back that they're actively corrosive even if their effects appear good in the short term.
In this, he anticipated a major point of Pauline Maier's classic work Popular Uprisings in Eighteenth-Century America, which is well worth the price of getting a used copy of the collection it's in if you can't get it through a library or something. If you want to argue the legitimacy of mob action with reference to eighteenth century British North America, you've got to read her to know why mobs came into fashion and why they went out.
And America is one of very few cases where violent revolution didn't beget either tyranny or more violent revolution (granted, whether our Revolution did not beget the second is actually rather debatable). It really does seem like we are the exception, not the rule.
Other examples worth noting include Scotland, Korea, and China. Mexico is also an arguable example, though their history causes them to zigzag a lot on whether or not they are one.
There's a long history in the world of violent mobs successfully ending up in revolutions that don't lead to tyranny or more violent revolutions, but the U.S. is at current the only relatively modern example.
Which is why the people backing Davis are likely doomed to fail.
I would disqualify Mexico, given that they had several post-revolution totalitarian regimes and a civil war (incidentally, with America, how much responsibility the Constitutional Convention bears for the Civil War is a question of much debatable value, as I hinted at above). With Scotland, I'm not really sure how to talk about totalitarism in a feudal context without throwing modern sensibilities everywhere. Don't know enough about Korea other than Feudal Japan getting an ass whupping and the Korean War, neither of which is an issue of violent rebellion. Really, though, I was thinking about Early Modern and later examples, for the most part.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Generally, part of the problem with armed revolution is that you then wind up with the sort of person who thinks that solving problems with violence is a good idea in charge of the government.
And then they continue to solve problems with violence.
Having an armed revolution not devolve into a disaster is an anomaly.
Finland.
Ireland. Sorta. Kinda.
Dunno about Finland, but Ireland is disqualified. They had a bloody civil war right after their revolution, after all, to say nothing of events later on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And America is one of very few cases where violent revolution didn't beget either tyranny or more violent revolution (granted, whether our Revolution did not beget the second is actually rather debatable). It really does seem like we are the exception, not the rule.
Hop in your time machine and go ask the slaves about tyranny. For that matter, ask suspected antislavery whites who dared speak about it too far South. Of course it's true that the US did not collapse into tyranny or violent revolution. The latter already existed. We did have a violent revolution that ended up overthrowing it, though. And another that overthrew most its gains after.
This is not just me being a killjoy and bringing up the slaves. The enslavers themselves were very cognizant of the clash between the patriotic rhetoric in the typical Fourth of July speech and how they governed both their human property and the white men they insisted having that property around made their equals. These considerations notably did not fuss most of them enough to do something so radical as do more than idly dream of a day when the continent would be a whites only establishment, but they thought about the tension from time to time.
So did their critics, who did quite a bit better when push came to shove. It's a bit nauseating when they get into how enslavers want to enslave and sometimes already had enslaved whites as well as blacks in the full knowledge that nobody was coming to steal their children, but they're not entirely wrong. For most of the slave states, arguably as early Bacon's Rebellion, slavery created freedom and one could not exist without the other. The rhetoric and strategies for defending it varied, but they routinely took precedence over any other right an individual might imagine having. Slavery was in practice, and sometimes admitted in as many words, the one indispensable freedom. It absolutely trumped speech (except occasionally on slavery's northern frontier) and religion. (To the point where denominations that were avowedly antislavery were largely driven from the Cotton Kingdom.) It frequently prevailed over the sanctity of the ballot box, to the point where an entire ideological movement was built around how the majority could not ever rule when that rule would imperil slavery. Seeing this, antislavery Americans routinely damned enslavers as despots and tyrants. They only had the facts on their side.
There's a number of groups that believe we've hit the point where revolution would be better than letting things continue.
Plus, the American Revolution was an undesired outcome for violent mobs. They didn't want it. The British Empire gave them no choice.
Many of the groups supporting this woman are in a different situation; they do want it. It would justify their persecution complex and give them a shot at either taking over the government or establishing their own nation that runs by their rules. After all, it worked out a lot better than expected last time.
This is true. I've run into some that believe it is time for a Revolution. I would say that the fuse may actually have already been lit...they're just waiting for it to reach the gunpowder...OR for a match to set the entire thing off before that.
I think it's getting to be a perilous time, and as things progress there is a possibility of a Revolution (or second Civil War...whichever way you look at it) in the US within our lifetimes.
But this is deviating from the actual topic of armed vigilantes coming to protect the lady.
If the Marshalls come to arrest her, and they fire shots to protect her...I don't know what will happen. I would think if I were there I'd duck and take cover. Some of these guys are supposedly military and ex-military. This means some of them may be rather proficient with combat.
It could turn into a bloodbath on both sides if they react violently.
HOWEVER...the Marshalls probably will KNOW they are there. Hopefully they know one of the first rules of a fight which is overwhelming force.
You show enough force, many times that fight is over before it even begins.
I'd bring a LOT of support to arrest her if these guys are there trying to stop that arrest (IF it even comes to that...we don't know yet and we don't know what's going to happen).
However, let us all hope calmer and more logical minds prevail and nothing of the sort happens (no gun battle, no violence, nothing to that effect).
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Greywolflord,
And then we get "See the armed jackboot of the State! Why were armed thugs* sent to arrest this sweet lady**? Tyranny!!! Benghaziiiiiiii!!!"
*=Because for some reason the Second Amendment doesn't apply if you're not a white guy*** who hates the government.
**=Who's also a vicious bigot.
***=No, seriously, imagine how fast and hard law enforcement would be acting if the Black Panthers**** had said this about Ferugson.
****=Or similar organisation
Some of these guys are supposedly military and ex-military. This means some of them may be rather proficient with combat.
No, the Oath Keepers are ALL military of some sort, whether currently serving or not. So yeah, if it comes down to a shots-fired scenario, it doesn't exactly look good for the U.S. Marshals.
Military training is much more thorough than what domestic law agencies receive as part of their training, plus they have the obvious bit of combat experience, due to fighting in wars, while the domestic agencies have relatively low combat experience.
Something that the US Marshals need to bear in mind, as do their superiors, is that even IF they show up with superior firepower, it will only reinforce the point that people are already speaking to, thus adding kindling to the fire of revolution. They need to judge whether arresting her again is even worth what it will cost if they come with a show of force.
Before going through their website and picking out one little soundbite that 'proves' the 'crazed gun nuts' argument, I would hope that people would actually READ about the organization itself and what it espouses, what it is against, ect.
I know people in the military and I know people who are Oath Keepers. And guess what? They're not gun-toting psychopaths. They're reasonable, sane people that just refuse to see America go the way of the Middle Ages with those in power being able to run roughshod over the people.
I believe that everyone can agree that less government overreach and abuse is a good thing, as is members of the military who would refuse unconstitutional orders.
Greywolflord,
And then we get "See the armed jackboot of the State! Why were armed thugs* sent to arrest this sweet lady**? Tyranny!!! Benghaziiiiiiii!!!"*=Because for some reason the Second Amendment doesn't apply if you're not a white guy*** who hates the government.
**=Who's also a vicious bigot.
***=No, seriously, imagine how fast and hard law enforcement would be acting if the Black Panthers**** had said this about Ferugson.
****=Or similar organisation.
That bit about Ferguson is actually somewhat misinformed, due to the amount of anti-government rhetoric that went on during those events. I remember that there were several organizations, as well as large groups of protesters that were talking about taking down the government.
Let's not forget the riots, looting, the mass arsons, and such that went on. I'm actually surprised that there was NOT a massive crackdown, at least compared to similar cases. Or even lesser cases, for that matter.
So... not really seeing how that last bit of your statement was valid, exactly. There was, compared to the severity of the chaos going on, comparably little in the way of crackdowns.
Was there some crackdowns in Ferguson? Yes, there was. Most of it was justified, in my opinion, because innocent people and their livelihoods were being targeted by the extreme elements among the protesters.
But were the crackdowns proportional to the crazed pandemonium that was going on? No, because if it was somewhere else in some other country, they would have come down HARD on the protesters and rioters alike.
Also, speaking to Benghazi, that whole situation was a farce, a farce that cost a loyal U.S. citizen his life, no less, because of incompetent leadership in the government. I would hardly make a joke about such a gross example of political mummery costing someone dearly.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Was there some crackdowns in Ferguson? Yes, there was. Most of it was justified, in my opinion, because innocent people and their livelihoods were being targeted by the extreme elements among the protesters.
So... the oppressive crackdown in Ferguson, which saw police threatening to kill civilians at gunpoint and even reporters being assaulted and jailed on trumped up charges, was "justified", but the entirely peaceable arrest of Kim Davis for violating her oath of office, the Constitution, and direct court orders... THAT was the jackbooted thugs of big gummint?
Uh huh.
Reality check. The 'Oath Keepers' are evil violent nut jobs.
Here's their leader writing about "Hitlery" Clinton's plans to overthrow the Constitution.
Here's an Oath Keeper's meeting with the speaker ranting about Obama being born in Kenya, gays, hate crime laws, the Constitution being a Christian document, and how much he enjoys killing people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I may jump into the conversation here. I suggest that some of you read the comments on the Oath Keepers site. There is division in the ranks there. Members of Oath Keepers are not all in agreement about supporting Ms. Davis as not a few think that the real victim is the LBGT community that has been deprived of its civil rights by Ms. Davis' actions.
While the Plaintiffs' Motion for Contempt has been decided, the underlying case Miller v. Davis is ongoing. Furthermore, there are two additional lawsuits against Ms. Davis as well, Ermold and Yates that are stayed pending the outcome of the Miller case. Davis has also filed motions to dismiss the cases which are pending.
Since Ermold and Yates are married now, their cases may be moot, unless it's deemed their marriage license is invalid, which would likely prompt another set of lawsuits.
This is why everything is before Judge Bunning as the Miller case was filed as a potential class action and all cases could be consolidated under that. There is a motion for class action status pending in the Miller case as well(sorry missed that as I don't have access to the Miller docket sheet).
The circus has just begun.
One comment about my frustration with Benghazi. Yes, a loyal American lost his life. Yes, it was a bad thing. George W. Bush was never castigated this badly by his enemies for his administration's failure to prevent the September 11th terrorist attacks. In fact, almost every liberal I talked to said that while he made some terrible mistakes (Iraq? Response to Katrina?), his handling of Afghanistan was restrained and surprisingly mature. Why do conservatives go after Obama and Hillary (who I don't like at all; FEEL THE BERN!) so vehemently for an attack that also wasn't predicted and which, frankly, cost many less lives?
Ejrik the Norseman wrote:
And with a president who has cut and will cut military jobs by a staggering number, while the Middle East and terrorist organizations from these regions are becoming increasingly dangerous I might add, is it any wonder that they hate him? The military is like a brotherhood and if you screw with one guy, you screw with them all.
Just a couple of questions here.Are you aware of what the United States has for a military budget, even under Obama?
Did you know China recently announced it was cutting its forces back by 300,000?
An excellent point. There is no defending how shoddily that situation was handled. It still doesn't excuse the screw-ups of the current elected/appointed officials.
I am aware that the U.S. Military has a budget, but cutting the budget for armed forces is universally a poor idea, particularly as volatile as the world is getting.
I am aware that China is cutting their own military forces. I mean come on though, they honestly control the world market because of the ridiculous levels of outsourcing, which were in turn spurred in part by the spiked costs of running a business in America. Honestly, that is a big part of the reason why America has experienced so much economic problems: the elimination of domestic jobs due to outsourcing, which was itself due to insane levels of taxation and such by the U.S. government. This was compounded by Clinton-endorsed toxic loan frenzies that lasted from back in the 90's to the early 2000's when the economy began to decline before the inevitable crash that it had.
Orfmay Quest Thank you for the flagging, as it was quite uncivil to sling accusations about paranoia around. I am glad civility is still a thing! I mean this honestly and not sarcastically. To your point of Davis, I ceded earlier that she was in the wrong and that I retracted my statements regarding that her rights were to be protected, because she essentially waived those by NOT allowing them to remove her name from the forms. She's a hateful bigot and I see no purpose in defending her. As to why the Oath Keepers are defending her, I can only say that, as with most organizations, there are whack-os in all of them. It just so happens that the leader of the Oath Keepers has descended into that mentality, which is quite a shame, because most Oath Keepers are upright people who don't support this bigotry. On their website, there is a growing level of dissent among those on the messageboards regarding this decision to grant her a security detail. I wholeheartedly agree, now that obscured facts are brought to light, that she should face the responsibility for her actions.