Pennsylvania AG refuses to defend gay marriage ban

Originally posted by charles1952
My concern is that the example of the Obama administration is travelling out to the state capitols. His principle, demonstrated over and over, is "The law doen't matter if it gets between me and my goals." We can no longer claim to be a nation of laws.

It's going to take a long time to clean this up.

Exactly. It's "The ends justify the means" way of thinking and approaching life ...and it's the single most dangerous thing to a nation built on law and running by a formal system of them. It's how you obliterate a legal system, not improve it. Then again, maybe that's the point.

reply to post by buster2010

At the risk of repeating another poster, and possibly irritating you, you don't seem to understand what the job of the Attorney General is.

When the AG sees the law as unconstitutional as she does then yes they should be able to pick and choose. Why should a person be forced to defend something they see as illegal?

Even the Supreme Court will tell you that duly passed and signed bills are presumed to be Constitutional until shown otherwise.

This whiner is setting herself up as higher than the State Supreme Court, as a one person judge of what's Constitutional. That is hubris and presumption bordering on the clinical. She should be removed from office pending the results of a psychological exam.

She should be forced to defend something she promised she would, the laws of the state. How does she know it's illegal? She doesn't. She's just using her position to skate around the law and make a mockery of them to benefit one of her own personal interests. That's corruption, and when she gets back from the psych unit, she should be fired, disbarred, and jailed.

Originally posted by buster2010
When the AG sees the law as unconstitutional as she does then yes they should be able to pick and choose. Why should a person be forced to defend something they see as illegal?

That is fine and dandy when it is convenient to your political stance. However if the shoe was on the other foot and she vehemently defended the law and was an outspoken advocate against gay marriage the left would be calling her homophobic.

Again, her job is not to decide constitutionality and giving AG's the power to make that determination undermines the voters of Pennsylvania. But I guess voter disenfranchisement is acceptable as long as it is in your favor. California's gay judge ruling on Prop 8 is a shining example of this.

reply to post by buster2010


Because I personally don't agree with it, don't like it, think it is absolutely disgusting.....

That's why I can give my OPINION of who people should and shouldn't marry.

Who am I? My opinion means nothing, but I can state it wherever and whenever I like

reply to post by buster2010

So when the government is out of everyone's life then the gays can marry. People like you never change their minds even when the government is out of people lives people like you will still find a reason so gays can't marry.

Exactly....People like me....

You mean the majority?

Yeah me personally I will always find a way to keep gays from marrying....Since I do so much to keep them from not being able to marry now....

I didn't know my words were so powerful to keep gays from marrying, but hey I learn something new every day...

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by buster2010

 

So when the government is out of everyone's life then the gays can marry. People like you never change their minds even when the government is out of people lives people like you will still find a reason so gays can't marry.

Exactly....People like me....

You mean the majority?

Yeah me personally I will always find a way to keep gays from marrying....Since I do so much to keep them from not being able to marry now....

I didn't know my words were so powerful to keep gays from marrying, but hey I learn something new every day...

What majority is this please show proof. 45% is not a majority.
Poll: 55 percent support same-sex marriage

Originally posted by Lipton

Originally posted by buster2010
When the AG sees the law as unconstitutional as she does then yes they should be able to pick and choose. Why should a person be forced to defend something they see as illegal?

That is fine and dandy when it is convenient to your political stance. However if the shoe was on the other foot and she vehemently defended the law and was an outspoken advocate against gay marriage the left would be calling her homophobic.

Again, her job is not to decide constitutionality and giving AG's the power to make that determination undermines the voters of Pennsylvania. But I guess voter disenfranchisement is acceptable as long as it is in your favor. California's gay judge ruling on Prop 8 is a shining example of this.

edit on 12-7-2013 by Lipton because: (no reason given)

Reread the article. She states the only reason she won't defend the law is because she views it as unconstitutional.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by buster2010

 

At the risk of repeating another poster, and possibly irritating you, you don't seem to understand what the job of the Attorney General is.

When the AG sees the law as unconstitutional as she does then yes they should be able to pick and choose. Why should a person be forced to defend something they see as illegal?

Even the Supreme Court will tell you that duly passed and signed bills are presumed to be Constitutional until shown otherwise.

This whiner is setting herself up as higher than the State Supreme Court, as a one person judge of what's Constitutional. That is hubris and presumption bordering on the clinical. She should be removed from office pending the results of a psychological exam.

She should be forced to defend something she promised she would, the laws of the state. How does she know it's illegal? She doesn't. She's just using her position to skate around the law and make a mockery of them to benefit one of her own personal interests. That's corruption, and when she gets back from the psych unit, she should be fired, disbarred, and jailed.

Nice post too bad you didn't brush up on the AG's Mission Statement before posting. Nowhere does it say they have to defend any law they don't want to.

reply to post by buster2010


Unfortunately for her, a State Attorney General does not have the power or discretion to determine on their own what is Constitutional and what is not. That isn't their job and it's not within their authority. If we had everyone just deciding on their own what laws to follow and enforce, oh, this nation could be a real fun place when Conservatives next hold all power, huh?

Personally, I'd prefer it not happen on either side. Questions of Constitutionality under our system are the sole domain of the Court System, not the Executive Branch...which is where the A.G. fits. They are only there to follow and enforce the laws passed by legislature and upheld by the courts....not make new law or pick what they like out of it.

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


Sorry to break it to you, but you're far from in the majority on this issue. That must be an uncomfortable position for you, huh?

For the life of me, I'm never understand the vehement opposition we see from people of a particular political persuasion against same sex marriage. Exactly how does a gay or lesbian marriage ruin/annul/effect your supposed straight marriage in any way? Is the only thing keeping you personally from marrying that hot guy with the ripped bod from the gym the fact that it's illegal? Afraid it'll turn either you or your wife gay?

If gays married, would skydaddy be pissed? Would he flood the planet and force a 900 year old man to build a boat that is magically big enough to fit two of every single species of animals on Earth aboard it. Or would he just burn us all to death a la Sodom and Gomorrah (fables, which, btw, had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.

Would it turn you gay?

For the record, I'm a straight man with no interest in ever getting married, but the last thing in the world I would ever want to do would be to prevent ANYBODY else, whether they're gay or straight, from getting married.

Originally posted by buster2010
What majority is this please show proof. 45% is not a majority.
Poll: 55 percent support same-sex marriage

I have the sneaking suspicion that many in that majority are like me on the subject; apathetic. I noted on the CNN survey there was only 3 choices; 'agree', 'disagree' and 'no opinion'.

What about 'don't care'? Personally I think muslims that self destruct like a James Bond tape recording, a burgeoning class dependent on government assistance just to exist, a 17 trillion dollar deficit, rampant abuse of power in the executive branch of the government, the militarization of your local police force and many other problems that affect us ALL are much more news worthy and should be the focus of our attention.

Supporters of gay marriage are nothing more than puppets, being used as one of many shields to protect the government from being taken to task on real issues that affect us on a completely different level. Just like the gun control advocates, the abortion advocates, the voter suppression advocates and their counter groups. They're all being played like a fiddle.

It's also sort of convenient that a 'news' agency's survey reflects their own televised opinions of a subject, FOX included, isn't it?

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by Lipton

Originally posted by buster2010
When the AG sees the law as unconstitutional as she does then yes they should be able to pick and choose. Why should a person be forced to defend something they see as illegal?

That is fine and dandy when it is convenient to your political stance. However if the shoe was on the other foot and she vehemently defended the law and was an outspoken advocate against gay marriage the left would be calling her homophobic.

Again, her job is not to decide constitutionality and giving AG's the power to make that determination undermines the voters of Pennsylvania. But I guess voter disenfranchisement is acceptable as long as it is in your favor. California's gay judge ruling on Prop 8 is a shining example of this.

edit on 12-7-2013 by Lipton because: (no reason given)

Reread the article. She states the only reason she won't defend the law is because she views it as unconstitutional.

I read the definition, seems pretty cut and dry in the opening sentence of the Mission Statement:

Mission Statement:

The State Constitution provides that the Attorney General shall be the chief law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth and shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be imposed by law.

Note that it says "...shall exercise..." not "...may exercise..."

reply to post by buster2010

Too bad I didn't brush up on the AG's mission statement? Me? You're right, it proves my point. From the Mission Statement:

The Commonwealth Attorneys Act establishes the Attorney General as the chief legal and law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth and provides the following fundamental duties and responsibilities of the Office of Attorney General:

•To represent the Commonwealth and all Commonwealth agencies and upon request the Auditor General, State Treasurer and Public Utility Commission in any action brought by or against the Commonwealth or its agencies; to furnish upon request legal advice to the Governor or the head of any Commonwealth agency. (Emphasis added)

As everybody's been telling you, she's either nuts, corrupt, or both. Maybe she's trying for a career in a Hillary Clinton administration. (For which, nuts and corrupt are both good qualifications.)

reply to post by charles1952


Well, I don't think she's nuts or corrupt. I think she is standing by her principals, and I think she's smart enough to know she can legitimately do so.

"It is my duty under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act whenever I determine it is in the best interest of the Commonwealth to authorize the Office of General Counsel to defend the state in litigation."

"Additionally, it is a lawyer's ethical obligation under Pennsylvania's Rules of Professional Conduct to withdraw from a case in which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement with the client," said Kane

www.attorneygeneral.gov...

reply to post by kaylaluv

Dear kaylaluv,

Forgive me, I'm spitting mad at a Mod. I'll try not to take it out on you.

"It is my duty under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act whenever I determine it is in the best interest of the Commonwealth to authorize the Office of General Counsel to defend the state in litigation."

First, it is her duty to defend the Commonwealth in any action, see my earlier post with the clip from the Attorney General's own website on her duties found in the Mission Statement. (One vote for corrupt) Second, the legislators and the governor have already made the determination of what is best for the Commonwealth. She thinks she knows better than all of them? (One vote for nuts) Finally, if she, personally, doesn't want to represent the Commonwealth, what's she doing preventing every lawyer in her office from doing so? They may see it differently. Step aside if you have to, but as I frequently hear "Don't force your morality on everybody else." (One vote for nuts and corrupt)

"Additionally, it is a lawyer's ethical obligation under Pennsylvania's Rules of Professional Conduct to withdraw from a case in which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement with the client," said Kane

First, lawyers defend cases they have fundamental disagreements with all the time. Ask any defense attorney. More often than not, they know there client is guilty, but they put on the best case they can anyway. (One vote for corrupt) Second, If she's not going to perform under the agreed terms when she began work, (back to the mission statement duties again) she's unethical to keep the job. She has an obligation to resign her position if she's not going to accept the client's terms. (One vote for nuts.)

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by damwel
I have never seen a prosecuting entity that didn't pick and choose their cases. They all do this right down to mayors court. Even if a grand jury is involved they pick what cases they will bring to the GJ and what they won't prosecute.

Choosing what to prosecute is a judgment call, and is reasonable.

Refusing to defend the Laws that the State has passed is dereliction of duty for a State AG, since she has sworn an oath to defend said laws . She should be removed from office.

Originally posted by charles1952
My concern is that the example of the Obama administration is travelling out to the state capitols. His principle, demonstrated over and over, is "The law doen't matter if it gets between me and my goals." We can no longer claim to be a nation of laws.

It's going to take a long time to clean this up.

Well stated, Charles.

We've become a nation of opinions.

Gay this gay that...so sick of hearing about it

Just get married & then divorced like everbody else & the only people making money off this deal are the lawyers - as per usual. They just doubled their business.

"we" were going good with the straight marriages until now.....

Monogamy is a stupid, unnatural oppressive, archaic concept that causes tons of strife in our society- so no it is not "going fine".

Marriage nazis suck, and then trying to deny your subjugation to gay people is oppressive and illogical at the same time.

reply to post by CB328

Monogamy is a stupid, unnatural oppressive, archaic concept that causes tons of strife in our society- so no it is not "going fine".

So, you're opposed to the monogamy involved in the concept of gay marriage? Then, you want to oppose gay marriage?

What's your opinion on the Attorney General's decision?