Andrew Napolitano on Kim Davis: ‘I Would Not Have Put Her in Jail’
RUSH TRANSCRIPT:
NAPOLITANO: “Well, remember, she was found in a state of civil contempt, which under the law means she disobeyed a court order. This is not criminal contempt. She was not convicted of a crime and sentenced to a jail term. She wasn't put in jail for punishment. She was put in jail for coercion, to coerce her to comply with the court's ruling. I would not have put her in jail, for several reasons. When people have religious beliefs, putting them in jail is not going to change the religious beliefs. The court should use the least force necessary, not the most force available.”
CARLSON: “What else could the judge have done?”
NAPOLITANO: “The way this ended up. Taking away from her personally the authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and giving it to her deputies. Then her conscience would have been clear. She would have been free and not in jail and the same-sex couples could have exercised what the supreme court has said is their right under the constitution.”
CARLSON: “What if she comes back to her job and says, I'm still against it and in my office I don't want this to happen.”
NAPOLITANO: “She can say that, if she says I won't permit five of my six deputies in my office who each told the federal judge that they will sign the marriage licenses, she'll end up back there. And then we have the standoff again. But the bottom line is, she should be free and clear to do her job without a religious impediment. If she has a religious impediment, that part of the job should not be in her job listing.”
CARLSON: “I don't know if you saw my interview with senator Rand Paul.”
NAPOLITANO: “I did.”
CARLSON: “He was saying that in 2013 there was a Kentucky law that talked about what you're just saying.”
NAPOLITANO: “Yes.”
CARLSON: “This sort of amendment, if you had a religious freedom, you know, question about your job. But that doesn't apply to the federal law.”
NAPOLITANO: “Well, the Kentucky law requires that Kentucky government accommodate the religious views of government employees and the views of those who want to exercise their rights. So what senator Paul was suggesting was, if the Kentucky law had been followed, someone other than she would have issued the piece of paper, which is all it is, an application for a marriage license. That would have accommodated her, let her keep her job without violating her conscience and accommodate those who want to get married and are choosing a same-sex mate as the supreme court said they can. That's what I understood Senator Paul to be arguing for.”
