If You Thought The Kentucky Clerk Was Stupid, Check Out This Tennessee Judge

Because what are the "freedoms" and "liberties" he rails about if not the right of government officials to tell people how to manage their love lives.

Lots of people are up in arms over the continued employment of Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Sixth Circuit has already told her to shape up or ship out. Justice Kagan declined to come to her rescue. On Twitter, Mike Sacks compared her to Bartleby the Scrivener, which would be apt if Melville added a chapter where a flagging libertarian-leaning presidential candidate tried to score points by defending his right to “prefer not to.”

But Davis is a bureaucratic functionary who doesn’t know any better. Not like a judge who decided to take his disagreement with settled Supreme Court precedent to absurdist levels by not letting a heterosexual couple get divorced. Because of Obergefell. Or something.

Chattanooga’s own Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton handed down an opinion on August 31 that qualifies as high comedy or gibberish. Or both. Probably both.

It’s not the first brush with stupidity for Atherton, who earned sharp and deserved criticism during his 2010 election for campaigning on the strength of his Martindale-Hubbard ranking — in violation of Martindale-Hubbard’s terms of service. It’s also in violation of common sense, because who cares about Martindale-Hubbard rankings? He may as well have campaigned on being a SuperLawyer. That’s always impressive!

Anyway, back to this opinion. After setting the scene by describing the efforts of the 60-something couple of Pamela and Thomas Bumgardner to end their 12 year marriage, Chancellor Atherton raises a concern (citations omitted):

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has noted that Obergefell v. Hodges, affected what is, and must be recognized as, a lawful marriage in the State of Tennessee. This leaves a mere trial level Tennessee state court judge in a bit of a quandary.

No, it doesn’t actually. But go on:

Sponsored

With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.

It’s more fair to say the Supreme Court set forth what kinds of marriages could not be banned by states, and therefore its decision has no bearing whatsoever on state law on the dissolution of existing marriages, but I’m sure he knows that and just misstated:

… what actually appears to be the intent and (more importantly) the effect of the Supreme Court ruling is to preempt state courts from addressing marriage/divorce litigation altogether.

Oh. Never mind then. I’m getting the sense Chancellor Atherton isn’t the sharpest tool in the legal shed. Looks like he’s a Tennessee Law grad. Maybe I’m missing the last verse of Rocky Top:

Wish that I was on ole Rocky Top
Down in the Tennessee Hills.
Ain’t no Supreme Court on Rocky Top,
Ain’t no gays with rights.

Sponsored

Perhaps it’s in there… I don’t hear that song much anymore since it only plays after touchdowns.[1] At least his alma mater is one of the top schools when it comes to the least indebted graduates — which they’re probably hyping a lot more than Chancellor Atherton’s status as an alum.

A few pot shots about the “patronizing and condescending verbiage” in Obergefell later, Chancellor Atherton goes straight for the homophobic smears because, why not?

Although this Court has some vague familiarity with the governmental theories of democracy, republicanism, socialism, communism, fascism, theocracy, and even despotism, implementation of this apparently new “super-federal-judicial” form of benign and benevolent government, termed ” krytocracy” by some and ” judi-idiocracy” by others, with its iron fist and limp wrist, represents quite a challenge for a state level trial court.

The whole opinion — at least the whole section of the Chancellor’s intriguing thoughts on jurisdiction — is a sight to behold. But in case you’re concerned about the lives of the couple actually trying to get divorced in all this, don’t worry — since the divorce isn’t contested, Chancellor Atherton believes he still has subject-matter jurisdiction despite the actions of those “iron fisted limp wrists” out there.

And he still denied their mutual wish to get divorced. Because what are the “freedoms” and “liberties” he rails about if not the right of government officials to tell people how to manage their love lives.

(The Chancellor’s full doozy of an opinion on the next page…)



[1] That’s not entirely fair. They dominated the “TaxSlayer Bowl” over Kirk Ferentz’s persistently hapless Hawkeyes. So I’ll cut the Volunteers some slack because anyone who can slay taxes like that deserves the benefit of the doubt.