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.
It's so funny to me how Corbett has morphed into a completely different person since it is an election year.
Someone else is on borrowed time in PA and that is that as... Toomey. He is way too far right for PA and squeaked into office when the all the crazies came out in 2010. He will be booted from office just like Santorum. Toomey belongs in the South.
There was no defense, especially after SCOTUS deemed the federal mirror of PA's DOMA to be unconstitutional. As stated numerous times, even the special council's defense of the law was simply, "Because states can define marriage." They did not argue that it did not cause harm to the plaintiffs, which is what is required when defending a law, they just said "Because we can." That's hardly a robust defense as they also knew it was unconstitutional. Heck, the ruling judge used language from Scalia's dissent where he stated that statewide bans would be ruled unconstitutional once DOMA was struck down.
There was nothing to defend as the outcome of the suite was a foregone conclusion once SCOTUS struck down the federal DOMA.
Quote:
it's irrelevant because not defending is not an option.
Apparently it was because that's what happened and the Governor's not fighting it.
Someone else is on borrowed time in PA and that is that as... Toomey. He is way too far right for PA and squeaked into office when the all the crazies came out in 2010. He will be booted from office just like Santorum. Toomey belongs in the South.
Meh... Does Toomey actually do anything in Washington? I was surprised as any that Mr. Club for Growth won the Senate seat, but he seems to be even more under the radar than Casey.
Apparently it was because that's what happened and the Governor's not fighting it.
That's not what happened, the Governor assigned special council because the AG shirked their duties as defined by the law. We now have a court decision in which case not appealing it is an option.
That's not what happened, the Governor assigned special council because the AG shirked their duties as defined by the law. We now have a court decision in which case not appealing it is an option.
And you keep ignoring the reason why she "shirked her duties." There was no rational legal defense of the law. there was no way to show that it wasn't causing harm to the plaintiffs, and SCOTUS had already struck down the federal version of the law. It wasn't going to survive the challenge and everybody knew it, even the special council that didn't really even defend the law.
I'm in agreeance that the AG should do her job but from speaking with actual attorneys and not keyboard commandos, deciding to not defend the legally indefensible was what everyone expected her to do. This move surprised no one other than partisans and the permanently outraged.
Doesn't matter what her opinion is of the law, it's her duty to defend it. End of story.
Quote:
(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.
The constitutionality is for the courts to decide.
Doesn't matter what her opinion is of the law, it's her duty to defend it. End of story.
The constitutionality is for the courts to decide.
You keep quoting and responding to only portions of posts and doubling down on your opinion, not the opinions of the legal community. Anyway, kind of a moot point since the courts did decide on the constitutionality of the law. And the decision came down exactly like the AG and every attorney in PA knew it would.
Doesn't matter what her opinion is of the law, it's her duty to defend it. End of story.
The constitutionality is for the courts to decide.
Absurdly clear that you don't have a law degree from anywhere but a cereal box.
You failed to quote the section subsection immediately preceding the one you think strengthens your case.
Quote:
(1) Upon the request of the Governor or the head of any Commonwealth agency, the Attorney General shall furnish legal advice concerning any matter or issue arising in connection with the exercise of the official powers or the performance of the official duties of the Governor or agency. The Governor may request the advice of the Attorney General concerning the constitutionality of legislation presented to him for approval in order to aid him in the exercise of his approval and veto powers and the advice, if given, shall not be binding upon the Governor. In all other cases the advice when received shall be followed and, when followed, the recipient shall not in any way be liable for doing so, upon his official bond or otherwise.
This section is contradictory to subsection 3 when the AG has determined that a particular statute does not pass constitutional muster, and you'd be very hard pressed to find an even minimally coherent legal argument for compelling an AG to defend such a law.
Also, the provision you quoted that allows the AG to pass responsibility onto the General Counsel or other outside counsel is VERY broadly written and can be applied here.
Stop trying to act like you know what you're talking about because you can work Google.
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 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.
