2.) they will be fine if anybody cares to actually read the articles or this thread
3.) per the law, her oath and her rules of office theres nothing unjust about it
4.) she is and thats NOT what she is doing
5.) she handled it perfectly with in the rules of the law, job duties and her oath
does anybody who is bothered by this actually reading the articles or knows what is actually going on or even knows the laws, her duties and her oath? certainly doesnt seem like it, seems like people want to just ignore the facts.
I see this as nothing more than prosecutorial discretion. I'm not the biggest fan of prosecutorial discretion and how I've seen it used, but it's a long-standing tradition.
I'd be okay with any resident of the state who can clearly demonstrate how the absence of the ban causes them actual harm -- not emotional distress, not offense, but real measurable harm -- being allowed to get together to defend the law.
One more time for the people that choose to ingore the facts from this thread and the articles.
the law says
the oath says:attorney general may allow lawyers for the governor's office or executive-branch agencies to defend a lawsuit if it is more efficient or in the state's best interests.
she says:"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."
NOW what is ACTUALLY happening:"I cannot ethically defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's version of DOMA, (law banning same-sex marriage), where I believe it to be wholly unconstitutional," Kathleen Kane told reporters at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia on Thursday
you can disagree with her position all day long but she broke no laws nor did she violate her oath and she has totally fulfilled her job duties, there is zero logical support to think otherwise.The American Civil Liberties Union filed the first known legal challenge to Pennsylvania’s Defense of Marriage Act in Harrisburg earlier this week, naming Corbett, Kane and three other state officials as defendants. The suit argues that Pennsylvania’s law violates a fundamental right to marry and also goes against the Constitution’s equal protection clause.
Since Kane has declined to defend the law, the responsibility falls to Tom Corbett(former AG) to decide what to do. Pennsylvania General Counsel stated Thursday afternoon that Corbett’s office or a legal team of his staff “will continue to review the lawsuit"
It's the leftist way. Don't follow laws you don't like.
Could you guys make up your freaking minds, please?
1) She was hired to do a job. TRUE
2) Her job is to uphold an defend the laws of the state, being that she is the state attourney. TRUE
3) She isn't upholding the law because she has choosen not to defend the state in the law suit. TRUE
4) She should step down. This is my opinion. People who aren't doing their jobs shouldn't have that job. Opinion, neither true or false.
5) She is doing the right thing by not defending the state. Opinion again...neither true or false.
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the ******* irony in that." - Justin Halpern
i will gladly help you out. I would have thought me saying "the bolded" and then bolding parts of your post would have helped you ans saved you from trying to refram and using starwmen but i guess not.
first ill re-post exactly what i already posted so you can see where you need the help at and got lost.
Then ill respond to your post eventhough most of it doesnt apply
ok here we go let me know if you are still confused after (ill even COLOR the bolded parts so you can see how they relate and dont get lost.)
1.) yes this is a fact, but nobody argued it so its meaningless to the discussion
2.) see 1 and also see the facts its not that black and white. there are LAWS that clearly say she doesnt have to defend them or she doesnt have to defend them herself. You dont get to pick and choose her rules for her, they are already defined by LAW and OATH.
3.) yes SHE is not and the is part of her job so to imply she isnt doing her job which you did in your OP is 100% false.
WHY? because by the DUTIES, REQUIREMENTS, LAWS and OATH that define her job she is 100% fulling her job. Her job has definitions and rules and she is following them.
4.) You are free to have this opinion, its not supported by any rational logic with in the context of this discussion but you are free to have it. As i said in my first post LAW, rules of her office and her oath all disagree with your opinion.
5.) yes this is your opinion
also to be clear, it may come off this way but theres HONESTLY no sarcasm in this post, just sharing info
hopefully you understand now, let me know if i can help further
as a matter of fact if i want to use that logic against her since the LAW says this:
i could say she is actually performing her job perfectly and passing it on to someone who will do it in an unbiased fashion. But theres no way to factually determine her bias.attorney general may allow lawyers for the governor's office or executive-branch agencies to defend a lawsuit if it is more efficient or in the state's best interests.
2.) she doing it perfectly per the rules, laws and oath of her office though, so theres no need to resign
3.) again not unjust according to the rules, laws and oath of her office
4.) what factually makes the law good? thats just more opinion backed up by nothing
5.) following the LAWS, RULES and OATH of her office is never a disservice to the people of PA, if the people of PA dont like the LAWS, RULES and OATH of that office then they need to change that because she is honoring them perfectly by following them.
SOrry digs as i keep repeating because you dont seem to get it, she has the total support of the rules, laws and oath of her office on her side and the is following them. You are free not to like because of your possible bias but shes not breaking any rules or laws or oaths.