Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 07-12-2013, 11:31 AM
 
46,806 posts, read 25,719,548 times
Reputation: 29290

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
You should have kept reading, period.

Same cite:

Quote:
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
And what did Kane actually say in her statement?

"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."

Wow, look at that! The AG knows the law better than a bunch of message board posters, who would have thought it possible.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-12-2013, 11:31 AM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,811,595 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte View Post
Based on what she personally wants (per her statement). So nice to see separation of powers is based on whim.
Just so it's clear it will be defended by the General Counsel. This is just political move on her part.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 11:32 AM
 
5,150 posts, read 7,725,399 times
Reputation: 1443
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
If she doesn't believe in the law, what the hell kind of defense do you expect her to mount.

Geez people...this is common sense. If the Attorney General is an elected position in that state, the citizens should've elected a more conservative AG.
Yes, the citizens should elect a liberal if they don't want an AG to believe in the law

The best way to deal with laws you don't like is to elect an AG that won't follow it. That's what the executive branch is for. To make law.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 11:33 AM
 
46,806 posts, read 25,719,548 times
Reputation: 29290
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte View Post
Based on what she personally wants (per her statement). So nice to see separation of powers is based on whim.
That's why we elect people - to have them exercise judgment, right? If there's no freedom of action, there's no reason to elect an AG, you can just put a civil servant with a rubber stamp in the seat.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 11:34 AM
 
46,806 posts, read 25,719,548 times
Reputation: 29290
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Just so it's clear it will be defended by the General Counsel. This is just political move on her part.
I thought it wasn't her decision, period?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 11:34 AM
 
5,150 posts, read 7,725,399 times
Reputation: 1443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
There is some principle in the statement you make -- the AG defends the State and its laws. However, the AG also isn't a robot; that person is also charged with making judgments. How much taxpayer money do you want an AG to waste defending laws that are clearly unconstitutional and/or that obviously won't hold up in court?
Based not on personal morality. The quote says what she wants not what's constitutional. Besides, that's what the courts are for but states seem to have contempt for that as they do for the supremacy clause.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 11:35 AM
 
4,176 posts, read 4,651,824 times
Reputation: 1672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
That's why we elect people - to have them exercise judgment, right? If there's no freedom of action, there's no reason to elect an AG, you can just put a civil servant with a rubber stamp in the seat.
We could debate what positions in government should be elected by the people, and whether they should be partisan elections. I don't know about AGs, but it strikes me as dangerous that many places have partisan judicial elections.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 11:36 AM
 
5,150 posts, read 7,725,399 times
Reputation: 1443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
You missed this part:

(3) It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to
uphold and defend the constitutionality of all statutes so
as to prevent their suspension or abrogation in the absence
of a controlling decision by a court of competent
jurisdiction.


As we have seen, gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.
You forgot to highlight a word. And if you think gay marriages are unconstitutional it isn't what we've seen unless you are hallucinating for all of us.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 11:37 AM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,811,595 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post

Wow, look at that! The AG knows the law better than a bunch of message board posters, who would have thought it possible.
Dane I'm aware of that clause and I don't think it applies. She's claiming it's unconstitutional and that is not her job to decide. I don;t see how that falls into "efficiency" or the "best interests of the Commonwealth". The best interests of the Commonwealth are having lawmakers make laws and have the courts decide their constitutionality.
Quote:
One legal expert said Kane's stance put her in a gray area. "It's not her job to substitute her judgment [on the law's constitutionality] for that of the courts," said Bruce Ledewitz, a Duquesne University law professor. "And though I don't like the law, that is our law. And she is not serving the people of Pennsylvania by not defending it." State law says the attorney general must defend Pennsylvania laws, but can ask lawyers for the governor's office or executive-branch agencies to step in if that is in the state's best interest.
Read more at Kane: Cannot defend Pa. law against gay marriage
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 11:37 AM
 
46,806 posts, read 25,719,548 times
Reputation: 29290
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte View Post
You forgot to highlight a word. And if you think gay marriages are unconstitutional it isn't what we've seen unless you are hallucinating for all of us.
Has anyone argued that the AG hasn't upheld the PA DOMA statute? I'd love to see a cite for that.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top