• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State attorney general won’t defend gay marriage ban

You didn't follow the Prop 8 decision?

this thread isnt about prop 8, the attorney general of PA did nothign wrong, she did her job 100%.
Im sure you can find a prop 8 thread where your post makes sense
 
this thread isnt about prop 8, the attorney general of PA did nothign wrong, she did her job 100%.
Im sure you can find a prop 8 thread where your post makes sense

And no one else is supposed to have standing to defend the Pennsylvania law, right?
 
And no one else is supposed to have standing to defend the Pennsylvania law, right?

wrong if you actually knew what you were talking about, read any of the articles or this thread you would know that the law states:
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.

and the articles have stated that Tom Corbett will probably be the lawyer or a team from those offices

so no, you are wrong and again maybe try a prop 8 thread where your post MIGHT make sense.
 
And no one else is supposed to have standing to defend the Pennsylvania law, right?

Did you read the article in the OP or any of the thread. Under Pa law the state AG can ask the Governors legal team or a an executive department lawyer to defend the law if it is efficient and serves a state interest. This is what has happened.
 
Did you read the article in the OP or any of the thread. Under Pa law the state AG can ask the Governors legal team or a an executive department lawyer to defend the law if it is efficient and serves a state interest. This is what has happened.

the asnwer to your question is obviously no
just an emotional knee-jerk reaction without actually knowing anything, and trust me ive been kneejerk myself but i dont double down on it and i simply admit i was wrong.
 
thanks for the back pedal and clearing that up, im glad you admit thats all it is and in post 40 you should have said that, you factually 100% did not
and for the record your opinion is wrong because the law and facts disagree


Happy, 15th birthday AGENT J:2party:
 
Happy, 15th birthday AGENT J:2party:

is that how many times i proved you wrong and caught you being dishonest already?!?!?!?!?! :laughat:



AWESOME THANKS!!!!

:thanks
 
i think its very clear, for anyone who reads this thread, of how dishonest, untruthful, you really are!

yes I agree 100% anybody honest reading knows what happened

i presented facts and you were exposed, then try to lie about it and backpedal

nothing has changed, your statement in post 40 is factual wrong and still is and you never mentioned OPINION in that post.
Please continue to make up more stories though the entertainment is off the charts, your fun.
Let me know when the fact your statement was wrong changes.
 
wrong if you actually knew what you were talking about, read any of the articles or this thread you would know that the law states:


and the articles have stated that Tom Corbett will probably be the lawyer or a team from those offices

so no, you are wrong and again maybe try a prop 8 thread where your post MIGHT make sense.

No, I'm aware that Pennsylvania has a governor who is willing to take the attorney general's place, unlike the situation in California. I'd be curious to see your reaction, though, if some state passed a "common sense" gun law which the executive branch refused to defend in court.
 
No, I'm aware that Pennsylvania has a governor who is willing to take the attorney general's place, unlike the situation in California.
2.)I'd be curious to see your reaction, though, if some state passed a "common sense" gun law which the executive branch refused to defend in court.

1.) so you now admit you were wrong and your question was meaningless and made no sense in this thread. thanks
2.) my reaction is MEANINGLESS to weather laws or oaths are broken. This is what you dont seem to understand.

this decesion could make me happy, or it could make me mad, but what she did broke no laws, was within her duties and it didnt violated her oath. "feeling" wont change those facts

now to answer your deflection question intened to help you save face and distract but that is also meaningless

if she choose to not defend a gun law i might be mad i might be happy but if no laws are broken and she does her job and fulfills her oath it doesnt matter to the topic at hand.

also please notice my avatar and signature and the mention of pro gun, you dont pay attention much do you? you are very kneejjerk.
 
Last edited:
Okay, go ahead and explain to me the connection between this story and prop 8.

Prop 8 set the precedent that a private group can't take up a case on behalf of the state, they lack standing. Hence the question, I would say.

The state can still appoint someone else to do it.
 
1.) so you now admit you were wrong and your question was meaningless and made no sense in this thread. thanks
2.) my reaction is MEANINGLESS to weather laws or oaths are broken. This is what you dont seem to understand.

this decesion could make me happy, or it could make me mad, but what she did broke no laws, was within her duties and it didnt violated her oath. "feeling" wont change those facts

now to answer your deflection question intened to help you save face and distract but that is also meaningless

if she choose to not defend a gun law i might be mad i might be happy but if no laws are broken and she does her job and fulfills her oath it doesnt matter to the topic at hand.

also please notice my avatar and signature and the mention of pro gun, you dont pay attention much do you? you are very kneejjerk.

She had a duty to defend the law, as did Jerry Brown and the attorney general of California. If some other competent official is appointed to vigorously defend the statute, fine! The problem is that no statute should fall simply because the relevant officials refuse to defend it. I don't see why this should be controversial.
 
Prop 8 set the precedent that a private group can't take up a case on behalf of the state, they lack standing. Hence the question, I would say.

The state can still appoint someone else to do it.

Then what went wrong in California?
 
Good for her. It'll set the groundwork for states with intelligent political representatives to tell Obama to go fist himself on October 1, if they decide to fight Obamacare.
 
She had a duty to defend the law, as did Jerry Brown and the attorney general of California. If some other competent official is appointed to vigorously defend the statute, fine! The problem is that no statute should fall simply because the relevant officials refuse to defend it. I don't see why this should be controversial.

No, she had the duty to defend the constitution against a law like this.
 
Good for her. It'll set the groundwork for states with intelligent political representatives to tell Obama to go fist himself on October 1, if they decide to fight Obamacare.

You can stop drooling because PPACA is a federal law, not state.
 
1.)She had a duty to defend the law,
2.)as did Jerry Brown and the attorney general of California.
3.) If some other competent official is appointed to vigorously defend the statute, fine!
4.) The problem is that no statute should fall simply because the relevant officials refuse to defend it.
5.) I don't see why this should be controversial.

1.) and per her job description and laws she fulfilled that duty 100%, she aslo has a duty to defend both federal and local consitutions
2.) meaninglessness to the thread
3.) yes it is fine no matter you opinion on the matter because thats the law
4.) thats not a problem at all since thats not happening, nor is it necessarily true.
5.) I agree but for some reason you seem to think it is
 
State attorney general won't defend gay marriage ban | TribLIVE



I very much respect this woman for standing up for her principles. I believe she should leave her job because it is her job to defend the state's laws. However, great to see her standing up for what she believes is right. Tough call on her part.

She took an oath of office to defend the law and the state constitution. This woman is a fraud who should be thrown out of office.

There is nothing principled or moral about gay marriage. Gay marriage is a sham and an abomination.
 
She took an oath of office to defend the law and the state constitution. This woman is a fraud who should be thrown out of office.

There is nothing principled or moral about gay marriage. Gay marriage is a sham and an abomination.

but gay marriage is not illiegal in some states.
 
Doesn't matter. We'll still see a fight, hopefully.

If not...then I guess I support this woman jailed.

It does matter. Because the task of defending Obamacare would fall to the Federal government. Not the states. Unless you think the Obama administration is going to elect not to defend Obamacare...
 
She took an oath of office to defend the law and the state constitution. This woman is a fraud who should be thrown out of office.

There is nothing principled or moral about gay marriage. Gay marriage is a sham and an abomination.

She was doing that. Defending the state and Federal constitution against an unconstitutional law. (by not defending that law in court)

The real abomination before God is your judgment and condemnation of the love others share. Do you really think He grants you this authority?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom