It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: DelMarvel
Yes, you missed something. She is an elected official and it would be a long and drawn out process to remove her.
That doesn't seem right. So any elected official like her can hold the government hostage just because they refuse to apply a law? Seems like the law on elected officials needs to be changed. It's kind of like the law is protecting dictators.
originally posted by: introvert
No. It makes the law unconstitutional and demands it be changed, but the Supreme court can only interpret law, not make or change it. That is what legislatures do.
Your response is also eye rolling because it's left wingers that came out against freedom of speech when Muslims try to kill people over burned Korans and pictures of Mohamud. Then suddenly you see them as the persecuted and individual liberty as something that doesn't matter.
originally posted by: TheBulk
Unless of course they are Muslims trying to kill people over cartoons. Then it's time to push back against free speech!
originally posted by: WeRpeons
So any elected official like her can hold the government hostage just because they refuse to apply a law? Seems like the law on elected officials needs to be changed. It's kind of like the law is protecting dictators.
originally posted by: Willtell
Shouldn't they put her on a 24 hour watch?
Somebody may get in their and crucify her!...
imagine they go in there and she's nailed a cross!
originally posted by: windword
She probably keeps 3 nails in her back pocket at all times! Hope they found them before she was put in her cell!
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: windword
She probably keeps 3 nails in her back pocket at all times! Hope they found them before she was put in her cell!
I call first dibs on her teeth when she is burnt at the steak.
I always wanted Saintly Relics.
originally posted by: introvert
I understand and agree. My point was to highlight the fact that she did not violate any law. She was held for civil contempt for not following an order. The law of the state still has to be changed to reflect the ruling.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
I call first dibs on her teeth when she is burnt at the steak.
I always wanted Saintly Relics.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: windword
She probably keeps 3 nails in her back pocket at all times! Hope they found them before she was put in her cell!
I call first dibs on her teeth when she is burnt at the steak.
I always wanted Saintly Relics.
Honestly, I haven't paid much attention to most of this. Has she actually become the social-conservative darling on this issue?
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: introvert
I understand and agree. My point was to highlight the fact that she did not violate any law. She was held for civil contempt for not following an order. The law of the state still has to be changed to reflect the ruling.
No, it does not. The Supreme Court invalidated their law.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: introvert
I understand and agree. My point was to highlight the fact that she did not violate any law. She was held for civil contempt for not following an order. The law of the state still has to be changed to reflect the ruling.
No, it does not. The Supreme Court invalidated their law.
And the SCOTUS ruling replaced the existing law with what?
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: beezzer
We now live in a society where government and government entities make decisions of what we eat, drink, smoke, and marry.
The government doesn't make choices on what I eat or drink, OR whom I marry. I make those choices. They have some work to do on the smoking thing, but that will come in time, I'm sure.