@n8inSLC @thereubeh Even if the clerk is considered a ministerial officer, which I'm not sure about, it's a permissive provision, "may."
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@n8inSLC@thereubeh And, it's clear that the clerk has not permitted the deputies to perform the act for her.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner@thereubeh but the context is clear that the "may" means at the deputy's discretion, not the clerk's.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @n8inSLC
@n8inSLC@thereubeh That is not how I read such a statute. Not at all.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner@thereubeh We're talking about a ministerial act—a clerk doesn't have discretion to refuse a marriage license request from a…1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @n8inSLC
@chrisgeidner@thereubeh …qualified couple, so a clerk can't lawfully forbid a deputy from performing that act on the clerk's behalf.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@n8inSLC @thereubeh OK. We disagree on this. But, the larger point here is that Bunning has not said, in any event, what he's doing here.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.