LGP Political Discussion Thread

[columbia]

Sarah Palin considering Senate run
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolrep ... enate-run/

[Shyster]

Now that I think about it, you consider Lincoln to be a war criminal.....so perhaps Hunter is up your alley.

I must admit that while playing Bioshock: Infinite, I was rather peeved that the Fraternal Order of the Raven guys (who apparently revere John Wilkes Booth) automatically attacked me, as I was perfectly willing to have a chat to discuss their views.

[obhave]

British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 97821.html

They think 15% of under 16 year old girls are getting pregnant . There are many other things that are shockingly wrong in that poll, but at least that one you can see with your own eyes everyday is just off.

[Kaizer]

just 15%? according to my cable guide its about 70%.

[columbia]

[Gaucho]

Dead Russian lawyer convicted of tax evasion:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/11/sergei-magnitsky-convicted-tax-evasion

"The court also convicted Magnitsky's former client William Browder, a Briton who has spearheaded an international campaign to expose corruption and punish Russian officials he blames for Magnitsky's death in a Moscow jail while awaiting trial in 2009."

[columbia]

EPP is going to love this one.....

US agency baffled by modern technology, destroys mice to get rid of viruses
http://arstechnica.com/information-tech ... f-viruses/

[tifosi77]

And in today's episode of Tif Rants Against Something Other Then That Jet, we have......

A brand-new U.S. military headquarters in Afghanistan. And nobody to use it.
I'll leave it to interested parties to click the link and read for themselves, but the story can be nicely summed up by these two excerpts:
"The windowless, two-story structure, which is larger than a football field, was completed this year at a cost of $34 million. But the military has no plans to ever use it."

"The top Marine commander in Helmand sent a memo to the U.S. headquarters in Kabul three years ago stating that the new structure was unnecessary. But his assessment was ignored or disregarded by officers issuing contracts for construction projects, according to senior military officials familiar with the issue."

The facility has been described as better appointed than CENTCOM's headuqarters in Florida. But the Afgans probably won't take possession of it because it's wired for 110-volt and Afghanistan runs on 220, so it just represents a huge expense for them. The most likely outcome is the 64,000 sq ft building - which was just completed weeks ago - will be demolished without ever having been occupied.

[ExPatriatePen]

EPP is going to love this one.....

US agency baffled by modern technology, destroys mice to get rid of viruses
http://arstechnica.com/information-tech ... f-viruses/

On so, so, so, many levels.


Thanks for sharing... this one is going out on my professional feeds.

[stinky]

As I read just the last page of this thread, starting with Sarah Palin possible run for Senate, climaxing at the $34,000,000 waste of a building, and ending with more gross incompetence on display at the EDA, I simply shake my head and dry a tear from my eye as I think about the governments increasing role in healthcare.

[Pucks_and_Pols]

Now that I think about it, you consider Lincoln to be a war criminal.....so perhaps Hunter is up your alley.

I must admit that while playing Bioshock: Infinite, I was rather peeved that the Fraternal Order of the Raven guys (who apparently revere John Wilkes Booth) automatically attacked me, as I was perfectly willing to have a chat to discuss their views.

Lincoln a war criminal? Is that based on him fighting the war in the first place or his orders to Sherman in Georgia? Both of those are rather weak claims as proof of war crimes tied back to Abe...

[Shyster]

Lincoln a war criminal? Is that based on him fighting the war in the first place or his orders to Sherman in Georgia? Both of those are rather weak claims as proof of war crimes tied back to Abe...

Both. Other illegal actions committed by Lincoln included:

Illegally declaring martial law in places like Kansas, Maryland, and Kentucky.

Illegally suspending habeas corpus (this action was explicitly ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court).

Illegally imprisoning thousands of anti-war Northern citizens.

Illegally suppressing members of the Northern press who opposed the war, including imprisonment.

Interfering with and rigging elections in Maryland and elsewhere in the North. This included the arrest and imprisonment of Maryland politicians who may have voted for succession had they not been thrown in jail.

Not to mention his manufactured fiction that states did not have the right or ability to secede from the Union.

[Pucks_and_Pols]

Wow, quite a list of grievances there. I can see the crux of this argument comes down to the ability of states to secede and then Lincoln's powers as commander in cheif to respond.
If you feel states do/did have the right to leave, then yes, Lincoln was certainly a tyrant.
I don't hold that viewpoint. I believe the CSA was an organized illegal rebellion and Lincoln correct in seeing it as his utmost duty to defend and preserve the Union. As such, within his powers as commander in chief, came the ability to suspend habeas corpus and declare martial law as a function of putting down the rebellion.
I do not recall any documented cases where Lincoln went over the top with the exceptional wartime powers he was entitled to, and he neither sought personal gain nor was overly cruel in his execution of his duties. Indeed, compared to other wartime leaders, Lincoln was a merciful moderate, not a vengeful war criminal.

[columbia]

He saved the Union and we should all be thankful.

[ExPatriatePen]

He saved the Union and we should all be thankful.

[Shyster]

PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane announced today that she will not defend the PA law banning same-sex marriage. According to her, the reason is because she personally believes the law to be unconstitutional, and “I cannot ethically defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s (law banning same-sex marriage), where I believe it to be wholly unconstitutional.”

Regardless of where one sides on the issue of same-sex marriage, I believe General Kane is violating Pennsylvania law. Article IV Section 4.1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that the AG “shall be the chief law officer of the Commonwealth and shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be imposed by law.” The General Assembly set the duties of the AG in the Commonwealth Attorneys Act. In 71 P.S. § 732-204(a)(3), the CAA says that the AG has the following legal obligation in regard to civil suits challenging PA statutes:

(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 no court of competent jurisdiction has declared the PA law on marriage unconstitutional, it would appear General Kane is breaking the CAA by refusing to “uphold and defend” its constitutionality.

[Hockeynut!]

Would that also apply if, for example, a challenge was made to PA's arcane beer/liquor laws and Kane decided to not defend those laws?

[Shyster]

Would that also apply if, for example, a challenge was made to PA's arcane beer/liquor laws and Kane decided to not defend those laws?

Her job is to defend the law up to the point where a court says it's unconstitutional. Nothing says she can use her own personal views to pick and choose what laws to defend.

[Hockeynut!]

Okay, I was just curious. I understand the intent of the law, but if someone would decide to challenge the PA law stating, "Any motorist driving along a country road at night must stop every mile and send up a rocket signal, wait ten minutes for the road to be cleared of livestock, and continue*", it seems silly that she's be required to defend it.

*not sure if that's a real law but it came up in a google search

[ExPatriatePen]

PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane announced today that she will not defend the PA law banning same-sex marriage. According to her, the reason is because she personally believes the law to be unconstitutional, and “I cannot ethically defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s (law banning same-sex marriage), where I believe it to be wholly unconstitutional.”

Regardless of where one sides on the issue of same-sex marriage, I believe General Kane is violating Pennsylvania law. Article IV Section 4.1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that the AG “shall be the chief law officer of the Commonwealth and shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be imposed by law.” The General Assembly set the duties of the AG in the Commonwealth Attorneys Act. In 71 P.S. § 732-204(a)(3), the CAA says that the AG has the following legal obligation in regard to civil suits challenging PA statutes:

(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 no court of competent jurisdiction has declared the PA law on marriage unconstitutional, it would appear General Kane is breaking the CAA by refusing to “uphold and defend” its constitutionality.

The announcement itself was a grandstanding move. Plain and simple.

There was no reason to make that announcement. For instance, do you think she'd have made a huge public statement over Hockynuts examples?

[columbia]

So you're cool with the status quo on that, EPP?

[tifosi77]

On this matter, I really don't like it when executives undercut the judicial process by refusing to defend a law. I invite and encourage a full litigation in all these cases, because I want a full record of these discriminatory laws being exposed for what they are: stupid.

Regardless of where one sides on the issue of same-sex marriage, I believe General Kane is violating Pennsylvania law. Article IV Section 4.1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that the AG “shall be the chief law officer of the Commonwealth and shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be imposed by law.” The General Assembly set the duties of the AG in the Commonwealth Attorneys Act. In 71 P.S. § 732-204(a)(3), the CAA says that the AG has the following legal obligation in regard to civil suits challenging PA statutes:

(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.

Regarding civil litigation, 71 P.S. § 732-204(c) reads:

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.

So apart from not contemplating the possibility that a female might at some point be AG, and having somewhat contradictory wording, it seems the statute allows for a mechanism for someone other than the AG to defend.

If you are involved in a lawsuit and your attorney expresses ethical challenges surrounding the merits of your case, would you want to retain them as your advocate?

As no court of competent jurisdiction has declared the PA law on marriage unconstitutional, it would appear General Kane is breaking the CAA by refusing to “uphold and defend” its constitutionality.

What is the sanction for this?

[ExPatriatePen]

So you're cool with the status quo on that, EPP?

Nope, but there are ways to address that. Making a huge public announcement that you're not going to perform certain duties that you swore to perform when you took office, isn't one of those ways.

[MWB]

Maybe she's making a stand in a way she sees fit and thinks will be effective. Maybe she's also willing to accept whatever consequences may come her way for this announcement. Does that make her a grand stander or someone fighting for rights?

[DelPen]

If she won't defend laws she doesn't agree with than she needs to resign.