You didn't follow the Prop 8 decision?
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
And no one else is supposed to have standing to defend the Pennsylvania law, right?
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 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.
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:
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!
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.
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.
Okay, go ahead and explain to me the connection between this story and prop 8.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Doesn't matter. We'll still see a fight, hopefully.
If not...then I guess I support this woman jailed.
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.