The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is getting really tired of Kim Davis' shenanigans. Yesterday, they denied her motion for a stay of the September 3 preliminary injunction pending appeal.
From the court brief:
Defendant Kim Davis is before this court seeking review of a preliminary injunction entered on August 12, 2015, enjoining her, in her official capacity, “from applying her ‘no marriage licenses’ policy to future marriage license requests submitted by the Plaintiffs.” She also appeals the September 3, 2015 order modifying the preliminary injunction to enjoin her from applying her no-marriage-license policy to future marriage license requests submitted by individuals who are eligible to marry in Kentucky...Davis has not sought a stay pending appeal in the district court as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1). Davis argues that it would be impracticable to seek a stay pending appeal because of the “extraordinary doggedness of the district court to expand the Injunction, without jurisdiction or fair notice and opportunity to be heard.” This is not valid reason to excuse moving the district court for a stay pending appeal in the context of this case.
You may remember the September 3 order as the fateful court order that Davis flouted, sending her to jail.
One wonders why Davis' lawyers are willing to play so fast and loose with court procedure that they would deliberately not approach the district court with their motion to stay. All of their other unsuccessful interactions with the Sixth Circuit would suggest that leapfrogging to federal court might not win them any brownie points with the judges.
In the meantime, an Alabama probate judge is somehow taking Kim Davis' trials and tribulations as inspiration to continue his own ultimately fruitless battle. Judge Nick Williams, whom we've met before, is asking the Alabama's Supreme Court to issue an order allowing him to refuse to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
From ROYGBIV:
“The jailing of Kentucky clerk Kimberly B. Davis put at immediate risk the liberty interest of all faithful and religiously sincere public officials in Alabama whose office has responsibility for making decisions as to whether to give sanction and honor to homosexual relationships to include the issuance of a license to engage in sodomy,” read a petition filed on [Williams'] behalf.
Public officials don't need to "sanction and honor" the relationships of same-sex couples; they need to give them marriage licenses. There's a difference. And the sooner public officials learn that, the better.