Discussion: Oath Keepers Offer To 'Protect' Kim Davis From Future Detention

Discussion for article #240367

will Snivlin’ Cliven be showing up as a special guest star? maybe with a free range cow to donate so the family doesn’t starve…

25 Likes

No right to jury trial for contempt hearing in California. Don

12 Likes

Do it. Come on I want just one of you idiots to fire a shot at a federal officer. Go ahead try it. See what happens next. Dumbasses.

32 Likes

I’m surprised that Huck and Cruz haven’t chained themselves to her as a form of “protest theater”.

17 Likes

No, please. Just interfere by standing in the way and refusing to move. That will be enough.

Must be cheese grits on the jail breakfast menu next week – so many eager for a stay there.

16 Likes

why do I sense that this is all going to end with the phrase “in a hail of bullets”?

17 Likes

Yeah, go ahead and threaten a US Marshall, you ignorant fucks. You’re not going to be dealing with the BLM like that jagoff hero of yours, Cliven Bundy. And please try to prevent the arrest of Kim Davis if she defies the judge. Maybe he’ll stick her away in a federal prison outside of Rowan County - and you idiots along with her.
If Davis and her lawyers side with these nutfucks, they are done. But they are too stupid to come out and disown their support. They’ll regret that if any harm is caused by these terrorists.

30 Likes

Well maybe the bloods and the crypts should show up to “protect” gay black couples seeking marriage certificates.

14 Likes

Rhodes claims that the federal judge who ordered Davis’ detention after she refused to issue gay marriage licenses “grossly overstepped his bounds and violated Mrs Davis’ due process rights, and in particular her right to a jury trial.”

OK, Cletus. 18 U.S. Code § 401 - Power of court

A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—

(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;

(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;

(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title III, § 3002(a)(1), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1805.)

56 Likes

I wonder if Lil’ Teddy & The Huckster will be around when the Oath Keepers and the US Marshals square off?

14 Likes

It is unclear if she will be detained again if she gets in the way of her clerks’ office issuing the licenses, as her lawyers have suggested, when she returns to work.

Unclear to whom? The judge wants the office issuing licenses. If she is trying to interfere, the judge will want to keep her away from the office.

32 Likes

If we only had a place to keep people like that, maybe with four walls and a locking door.

18 Likes

Isn’t interference with a federal officer in the act of carrying out his/her duty, a felony? I’m no expert but I think these fuckwads, believing they can intimidate a federal judge or his designated officers, are in for a big surprise. Fucking losers…Get a real job, you assholes.

51 Likes

Looks like candidates for husband #5 are approaching the podium.

32 Likes

Huck would ‘accidently’ chain Cruz to a tree so he couldn’t be on camera with this.

16 Likes

Great, just what Kentucky needs, more old fat guys.

9 Likes

This amounts, in Orwell’s famous phrase, to “a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” Or you could think of them as attention whores who are willing to get bad attention but don’t really know how bad bad attention can be.

33 Likes

Looks like the Oath Keepers are as ignorant of the law as most of the Republican candidates.

28 Likes

“grossly overstepped his bounds and violated Mrs Davis’ due process rights, and in particular her right to a jury trial.”

No right to a jury trial where no issue of fact remains to be determined. There was no dispute over whether she was refusing to issue licenses, None. Beyond that, it was merely a question of law for the judge whether she was violating her duties, could be subject to an order or writ of mandamus commanding her to issue the licenses and then held in contempt for its violation.

Frankly, this guy probably knows all that. It’s remedial stuff. He’s just lying his way to rabble-rousing because he thinks he’s found a hook that will play well with the Teatroll base.

20 Likes