Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
At most, a few nights in jail, then she gets to do the whole fundie tour circuit and make bank speaking at Megachurches.
She might even be able to get a spot on Fox News or something out of it. Add in a TV movie, a book, etc and she's basically set for life without having to do much of anything.
Sure, she'll be forgotten by 99% of the country in a few weeks, but there's still that 1% who considers her a hero. Sadly, 1% is quite an understatement, but you get the point.
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
In our county the clerk of the court runs the county's finance office. The authority of the clerk is what pays all the county's bills.
We are not small time either.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
The issue is your just changing one version of corruption for another. One thing letting Davis do this is that the people she represents are ok with it. So she's not beholden to higher government powers, but she is beholden to the backwards residents of Kentucky.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yet, somehow, this kind of things don't actually happens in the vast majority of places where this is not an elected position.
Not to mention that elections don't do much against unproved corruption and abuse of power.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
The issue is your just changing one version of corruption for another. One thing letting Davis do this is that the people she represents are ok with it. So she's not beholden to higher government powers, but she is beholden to the backwards residents of Kentucky.
The point you are missing is that there is a much broader social context. This is one elected official that is using the power of her office for corrupt ends, and the system has just thrown her ass in jail.
I'm just not sure what that has to do with whether a clerk should be elected or not. Despite the dull title, the county clerk is one of the most important officials in most jurisdictions. It's not a dog catcher position.
She's going to get out at 3pm today, hardly a martyr. The only issue now is that she'll be paid to effectively not do her job while her clerks do the work for her.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
The issue is your just changing one version of corruption for another. One thing letting Davis do this is that the people she represents are ok with it. So she's not beholden to higher government powers, but she is beholden to the backwards residents of Kentucky.
Yes, but in theory it's easier for one person to be corrupt. The public can't come in one day and say "fuck with X or you're fired" (or even agree on X in most cases), they can only get rid of her on election day.
So conservatives on Twitter are saying its the beginning of a holy war and the religious freedom must be defended.
I expect any radical actions by such self-appointed religious martyrs will occur via twitter and blogs because damn those armchairs are just too comfy to get up from.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
The issue is your just changing one version of corruption for another. One thing letting Davis do this is that the people she represents are ok with it. So she's not beholden to higher government powers, but she is beholden to the backwards residents of Kentucky.
Yes, but in theory it's easier for one person to be corrupt. The public can't come in one day and say "fuck with X or you're fired" (or even agree on X in most cases), they can only get rid of her on election day.
Tyranny of the majority is a real thing and in fact until recently was the reason that Kim Davis didn't have to issue certificates to gay people. Everyone is fine with laws being carried out by popular mandate until they aren't a part of popular mandate.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So conservatives on Twitter are saying its the beginning of a holy war and the religious freedom must be defended.
I expect any radical actions by such self-appointed religious martyrs will occur via twitter and blogs because damn those armchairs are just too comfy to get up from.
How terrible the oppression of our powerless and disenfranchised class of middle-class white Christians is
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yet, somehow, this kind of things don't actually happens in the vast majority of places where this is not an elected position.
Citation please. I don't think you know whether the "vast majority" of county clerks are elected or appointed.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yet, somehow, this kind of things don't actually happens in the vast majority of places where this is not an elected position.
Not to mention that elections don't do much against unproved corruption and abuse of power.
From a quick Googling, most counties in the United States have either an elected Clerk or Register (Recorder) of Deeds or a state-level office led by an elected Register (Recorder) of Deeds. It's the United States, so I am sure there are local variations, but that office being elected has been the American norm since the colonial era.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yet, somehow, this kind of things don't actually happens in the vast majority of places where this is not an elected position.
Citation please. I don't think you know whether the "vast majority" of county clerks are elected or appointed.
Let me introduce you to a new concept. It's called "the rest of the world". We have property too!
So conservatives on Twitter are saying its the beginning of a holy war and the religious freedom must be defended.
I expect any radical actions by such self-appointed religious martyrs will occur via twitter and blogs because damn those armchairs are just too comfy to get up from.
The south will rise again, and then sit down again because they are out of breath.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So conservatives on Twitter are saying its the beginning of a holy war and the religious freedom must be defended.
I expect any radical actions by such self-appointed religious martyrs will occur via twitter and blogs because damn those armchairs are just too comfy to get up from.
It's worth mentioning that the Randy Barnett style Constitutional mind control boogeymen Hedgie is so upset about are not part of the group of conservatives supporting her.
She's going to get out at 3pm today, hardly a martyr. The only issue now is that she'll be paid to effectively not do her job while her clerks do the work for her.
She's going to get out at 3pm today, hardly a martyr. The only issue now is that she'll be paid to effectively not do her job while her clerks do the work for her.
WHAT? THE FUCK WHY?
Have no fear!
Kim Davis tells judge she'd rather stay in jail than cooperate with her deputies giving marriage licenses. OK, jail it is, judge says. ^JC
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yet, somehow, this kind of things don't actually happens in the vast majority of places where this is not an elected position.
Citation please. I don't think you know whether the "vast majority" of county clerks are elected or appointed.
Let me introduce you to a new concept. It's called "the rest of the world". We have property too!
It's an elected position in Canada. It looks to be the equivalent to an appointed judgeship in the UK, but I'd need more time to be sure that the position is similar to say for certain. It would take some time, but my quick Googling shows the equivalent jobs are pretty big deals in the rest of Western Europe, but I can't say what the mechanism is for choosing them.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yet, somehow, this kind of things don't actually happens in the vast majority of places where this is not an elected position.
Citation please. I don't think you know whether the "vast majority" of county clerks are elected or appointed.
Let me introduce you to a new concept. It's called "the rest of the world". We have property too!
This is as snide as it is ignorant. But if you must be that way, also feel free to demonstrate that the vast majority of countries in the world have counties or similar analogs to them, and that the vast majority of clerks in these counties are appointed.
I said "citation please" not "be a silly goose please".
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it being an elected position and why it's stupid.
A county clerk has a tremendous amount of power? Geez, then we wouldn't want them beholden only to a small local powerbase that gains direct benefit from any shenanigans they might get up to then, would we? I mean, god, imagine what a county clerk in a mostly white but with a black minority population could do to said minority population if we elected that position!
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yet, somehow, this kind of things don't actually happens in the vast majority of places where this is not an elected position.
Citation please. I don't think you know whether the "vast majority" of county clerks are elected or appointed.
Let me introduce you to a new concept. It's called "the rest of the world". We have property too!
This is as snide as it is ignorant. But if you must be that way, also feel free to demonstrate that the vast majority of countries in the world have counties or similar analogs to them, and that the vast majority of clerks in these counties are appointed.
I said "citation please" not "be a silly goose please".
From a quick look around, the equivalent position internationally is either elected, appointed in a similar manner to a judge, or centered around a national ministry headed by an Minister-level official. It's kind of a big deal everywhere.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it being an elected position and why it's stupid.
A county clerk has a tremendous amount of power? Geez, then we wouldn't want them beholden only to a small local powerbase that gains direct benefit from any shenanigans they might get up to then, would we? I mean, god, imagine what a county clerk in a mostly white but with a black minority population could do to said minority population if we elected that position!
this is also silly
Shall we not elect anyone in a county where there are minorities present?
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yet, somehow, this kind of things don't actually happens in the vast majority of places where this is not an elected position.
Citation please. I don't think you know whether the "vast majority" of county clerks are elected or appointed.
Let me introduce you to a new concept. It's called "the rest of the world". We have property too!
It's an elected position in Canada. It looks to be the equivalent to an appointed judgeship in the UK, but I'd need more time to be sure that the position is similar to say for certain. It would take some time, but my quick Googling shows the equivalent jobs are pretty big deals in the rest of Western Europe, but I can't say what the mechanism is for choosing them.
I'll ask you for a citation regarding it being an elected position in Canada, 'cause that's new to me. They are position with a similar title, but those are more like "mayor", and don't actually do much about property registry or marriage licences.
I'm suddenly wondering of mrondeau saw 'county' and read 'country', then got real snippy.
lolololol
No, I can read.
In more details:
Phillishere starts by explaining the need for the person in charge of property registration, marriage licence and public records in general being an elected position by describing a problem which does not happen.
I say that it's not a problem in the vast majority of the world, where those doing those jobs are not elected. They work for someone who is elected, but that's it.
spool32 goes on about "county clerks", a position that's mostly present in a few countries (including Canada) where there's a county system. That's also irrelevant, because what matter is not the title, it's being in charge of public records. It might be an elected position in most counties, but the world is not made up of counties.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it being an elected position and why it's stupid.
A county clerk has a tremendous amount of power? Geez, then we wouldn't want them beholden only to a small local powerbase that gains direct benefit from any shenanigans they might get up to then, would we? I mean, god, imagine what a county clerk in a mostly white but with a black minority population could do to said minority population if we elected that position!
So, you'd prefer they were a direct report to an elected official with a small local powerbase that benefits directly from any shenanigans? You don't get to whatever social end goal you want to accomplish by diminishing the authority of the official that registers deeds and records, which is why the position and its equivalent are important everywhere and insulated in some fashion in most places (via judge-level appointment, election, Ministry-level influence, or other social mechanism to invest power and independence in the office holder).
Like, this is a screwed up incident. It also says as little about the ethics of electing the position, just as GWB's tenure as president is not an argument for the President to be an direct employee of Congress.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it being an elected position and why it's stupid.
A county clerk has a tremendous amount of power? Geez, then we wouldn't want them beholden only to a small local powerbase that gains direct benefit from any shenanigans they might get up to then, would we? I mean, god, imagine what a county clerk in a mostly white but with a black minority population could do to said minority population if we elected that position!
this is also silly
Shall we not elect anyone in a county where there are minorities present?
How is it silly spool32? Like, do explain how locally elected positions are not completely amenable to easy corruption?
Cause Phillishere's entire bullshit argument is that electing them is somehow a protection against corruption in that office and I've given a simple example of how, no, it is not.
Preacher, why would she be receiving a paycheck if she's in jail and not at work?
I don't know if she would be? I would assume she probably does because she's not accused of a direct crime she's being held in contempt, but I dunno who decides if an elected official gets paid when they are held in contempt for not following the law.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
The issue is your just changing one version of corruption for another. One thing letting Davis do this is that the people she represents are ok with it. So she's not beholden to higher government powers, but she is beholden to the backwards residents of Kentucky.
Yes, but in theory it's easier for one person to be corrupt. The public can't come in one day and say "fuck with X or you're fired" (or even agree on X in most cases), they can only get rid of her on election day.
Tyranny of the majority is a real thing and in fact until recently was the reason that Kim Davis didn't have to issue certificates to gay people. Everyone is fine with laws being carried out by popular mandate until they aren't a part of popular mandate.
Tyranny of the majority doesn't usually result in messing with one person for the benefit of one other. The things corruption are likely to lead to in an elected position are a subset of those in a hired one.
Bribery on the other hand... but that applies either way as well, and in a hired position you can pick who bribe.
Five out of six deputy clerks in Rowan County, Ky., have agreed to issue same-sex marriage licenses after a judge found a Kentucky clerk in contempt of court and ordered her to jail for refusing to grant the licenses.
The lone holdout among the deputy's clerk is the clerk's son, Nathan, according to The Associated Press.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it being an elected position and why it's stupid.
A county clerk has a tremendous amount of power? Geez, then we wouldn't want them beholden only to a small local powerbase that gains direct benefit from any shenanigans they might get up to then, would we? I mean, god, imagine what a county clerk in a mostly white but with a black minority population could do to said minority population if we elected that position!
this is also silly
Shall we not elect anyone in a county where there are minorities present?
How is it silly spool32? Like, do explain how locally elected positions are not completely amenable to easy corruption?
Cause Phillishere's entire bullshit argument is that electing them is somehow a protection against corruption in that office and I've given a simple example of how, no, it is not.
It's better than appointees. All you're doing is arguing that corruption exists. yes it does! Any official can be corrupt. Given that, we should prefer the democratic way of picking leaders.
Besides her being in jail for contempt is proof the system works. Although I think the local legislature should be in jail also/instead, for not impeaching her.
Posts
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yeah, like in the Bush administration.
At most, a few nights in jail, then she gets to do the whole fundie tour circuit and make bank speaking at Megachurches.
She might even be able to get a spot on Fox News or something out of it. Add in a TV movie, a book, etc and she's basically set for life without having to do much of anything.
Sure, she'll be forgotten by 99% of the country in a few weeks, but there's still that 1% who considers her a hero. Sadly, 1% is quite an understatement, but you get the point.
We are not small time either.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
The issue is your just changing one version of corruption for another. One thing letting Davis do this is that the people she represents are ok with it. So she's not beholden to higher government powers, but she is beholden to the backwards residents of Kentucky.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yet, somehow, this kind of things don't actually happens in the vast majority of places where this is not an elected position.
Not to mention that elections don't do much against unproved corruption and abuse of power.
The point you are missing is that there is a much broader social context. This is one elected official that is using the power of her office for corrupt ends, and the system has just thrown her ass in jail.
I'm just not sure what that has to do with whether a clerk should be elected or not. Despite the dull title, the county clerk is one of the most important officials in most jurisdictions. It's not a dog catcher position.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yes, but in theory it's easier for one person to be corrupt. The public can't come in one day and say "fuck with X or you're fired" (or even agree on X in most cases), they can only get rid of her on election day.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I expect any radical actions by such self-appointed religious martyrs will occur via twitter and blogs because damn those armchairs are just too comfy to get up from.
Tyranny of the majority is a real thing and in fact until recently was the reason that Kim Davis didn't have to issue certificates to gay people. Everyone is fine with laws being carried out by popular mandate until they aren't a part of popular mandate.
pleasepaypreacher.net
How terrible the oppression of our powerless and disenfranchised class of middle-class white Christians is
Citation please. I don't think you know whether the "vast majority" of county clerks are elected or appointed.
From a quick Googling, most counties in the United States have either an elected Clerk or Register (Recorder) of Deeds or a state-level office led by an elected Register (Recorder) of Deeds. It's the United States, so I am sure there are local variations, but that office being elected has been the American norm since the colonial era.
Let me introduce you to a new concept. It's called "the rest of the world". We have property too!
The south will rise again, and then sit down again because they are out of breath.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's worth mentioning that the Randy Barnett style Constitutional mind control boogeymen Hedgie is so upset about are not part of the group of conservatives supporting her.
Here's Volokh Conspirator Johnathan Adler explaining why Davis is wrong and also sanctuary cities are legal.
WHAT? THE FUCK WHY?
Have no fear!
It's an elected position in Canada. It looks to be the equivalent to an appointed judgeship in the UK, but I'd need more time to be sure that the position is similar to say for certain. It would take some time, but my quick Googling shows the equivalent jobs are pretty big deals in the rest of Western Europe, but I can't say what the mechanism is for choosing them.
Looks like in the UK, the position is directly appointed by The Queen and Prime Minister.
This is as snide as it is ignorant. But if you must be that way, also feel free to demonstrate that the vast majority of countries in the world have counties or similar analogs to them, and that the vast majority of clerks in these counties are appointed.
I said "citation please" not "be a silly goose please".
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it being an elected position and why it's stupid.
A county clerk has a tremendous amount of power? Geez, then we wouldn't want them beholden only to a small local powerbase that gains direct benefit from any shenanigans they might get up to then, would we? I mean, god, imagine what a county clerk in a mostly white but with a black minority population could do to said minority population if we elected that position!
lolololol
From a quick look around, the equivalent position internationally is either elected, appointed in a similar manner to a judge, or centered around a national ministry headed by an Minister-level official. It's kind of a big deal everywhere.
this is also silly
Shall we not elect anyone in a county where there are minorities present?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
it burns
I'll ask you for a citation regarding it being an elected position in Canada, 'cause that's new to me. They are position with a similar title, but those are more like "mayor", and don't actually do much about property registry or marriage licences.
EDIT:
No, I can read.
In more details:
Phillishere starts by explaining the need for the person in charge of property registration, marriage licence and public records in general being an elected position by describing a problem which does not happen.
I say that it's not a problem in the vast majority of the world, where those doing those jobs are not elected. They work for someone who is elected, but that's it.
spool32 goes on about "county clerks", a position that's mostly present in a few countries (including Canada) where there's a county system. That's also irrelevant, because what matter is not the title, it's being in charge of public records. It might be an elected position in most counties, but the world is not made up of counties.
So, you'd prefer they were a direct report to an elected official with a small local powerbase that benefits directly from any shenanigans? You don't get to whatever social end goal you want to accomplish by diminishing the authority of the official that registers deeds and records, which is why the position and its equivalent are important everywhere and insulated in some fashion in most places (via judge-level appointment, election, Ministry-level influence, or other social mechanism to invest power and independence in the office holder).
Like, this is a screwed up incident. It also says as little about the ethics of electing the position, just as GWB's tenure as president is not an argument for the President to be an direct employee of Congress.
How is it silly spool32? Like, do explain how locally elected positions are not completely amenable to easy corruption?
Cause Phillishere's entire bullshit argument is that electing them is somehow a protection against corruption in that office and I've given a simple example of how, no, it is not.
I don't know if she would be? I would assume she probably does because she's not accused of a direct crime she's being held in contempt, but I dunno who decides if an elected official gets paid when they are held in contempt for not following the law.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Tyranny of the majority doesn't usually result in messing with one person for the benefit of one other. The things corruption are likely to lead to in an elected position are a subset of those in a hired one.
Bribery on the other hand... but that applies either way as well, and in a hired position you can pick who bribe.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I'll wait and see. I'm sure america will let me down, but she hasn't made a damn thing yet other than made me mad as fuck she's such a bigot.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Oh sweet corruption.
It's better than appointees. All you're doing is arguing that corruption exists. yes it does! Any official can be corrupt. Given that, we should prefer the democratic way of picking leaders.