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.
She was elected to do a job and her opinion on the law is irrelevant.
Her job duties include exercising discretion on which laws her office should spend resources on defending. The voters of PA can elect someone else if they disagree.
Good decision. Why waste millions in taxpayer dollars to defend a hateful and discriminatory law that is living on borrowed time already.
Well no, that money will still be spent. See its not that she's saying the State of Pennsylvania won't defend this law, she's saying She won't
Quote:
Kane, a Democrat, said she believes the state's law is unconstitutional and can't in good conscience defend it. The state general counsel will take over the case, she said.
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.
It would be interesting to see, though: "If it pleases the court, I intent to implore you to upheld the law, even though it is an embarrassing reflection of the irrational fear, bigotry and hate that some citizens of the state practice."
This is ridiculous. The AG should uphold every law regardless of what the law is. This selective enforcement such as with immigration is wrong and has to stop. What other laws can we choose to ignore on a whim?
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.