Actually, no. It's well established that an executive has discretion in how to execute enforcement of the law; in this case, though, we're dealing with a clerical function, not an executive one. Her job is to hand out blank forms, take payment, and file filled-out forms.
Now, it's the governor's executive privilege to determine whether or not to prosecute her for violation of the law, but in her case, she's not executing anything; she's just a file Clerk.
ETA:
To expound: she presumes to arrogate the authority of a judge. It is up to the judge of the relevant court to determine the outcome of a legal matter; she is standing as an obstacle, saying "I won't allow you to see a judge." She is fundamentally violating the little-known fourth clause of the First Amendment ("to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"). She is acting as the final arbiter of claims, saying "the Court will not hear you"). Her position is not to determine the outcome of a claim, but merely to acknowledge that a claim has been filed; yet she refuses to allow a claim to be filed. Furthermore, even when she has had a claim filed against her in a superior court, and has been found in liability, she refuses to comply with an Article IV order (which, under the Supremacy Clause, is the highest authority in the land), duly constituted under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Put shortly: she has no legal basis upon which to stand. Her job is not to judge, but to shuffle papers, and she refuses to do so. Were she an ordinary employee, she could have been canned long ago, but for some reason, Clerk of Court is an elected position. If anybody can give me a good reason why, I'd love to hear it, but frankly, I don't see her as anything more than a paper-pushing small-s secretary, who ought to be taking filings and issuing receipts as necessary.
But do, please, give me a reason to think otherwise.
Last edited:
