It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by charles1952
[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)
"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."
The Commonwealth Attorneys Act has a specific, plainly written provision that enables me to refer cases at my sole discretion. The OAG refers cases to the OGC hundreds of times each year, for many different reasons.
Here is the relevant language from the Commonwealth Attorneys Act:
The Attorney General may, upon determining that it is more efficient or otherwise is in the best interest of the Commonwealth, authorize the General Counsel or the counsel for an independent agency to initiate, conduct or defend any particular litigation or category of litigation in his stead.
"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.)
Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
Originally posted by damwel
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
It's none of your business who other people marry.
It sure is.....When the law states otherwise......
Not to mention the "gay movement" is destroying this country with their votes! They are voting in ONLY people who support gay marriage.....That candidate could state they are raising taxes 1000% BUT they support gay marriage so it's okay to them....
Why can't it stay behind closed doors like it always has been? Why the drastic changes needed?