BREAKING: Judge Roy Moore Suspended for Violating Gay Marriage Ruling

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, if true, I have no problem here.... he should uphold his duties.

But remember folks, that shit works both ways. Many of you on the left have no problem when your side sidesteps their sworn duties in order to "make a statement"

Really? When and where did that happen. ??Who are we talking about?

The Obama administration's decision to not enforce DOMA for starters...

 

[Manonthestreet]

Blah blah blah ...upholding the law black lives matter......j.....

 

[Divine Wind]

The Obama administration's decision to not enforce DOMA for starters...

Add not enforcing certain drug and immigration laws.

Obama Administration says it won't enforce laws it doesn't like

Another thread on the issue: Federal laws Obama is ignoring enforcement while going after American law abiding citizens!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

...Who are we talking about?

Hypocritical partisans.

Can you be a little more vague?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The Obama administration's decision to not enforce DOMA for starters...

Add not enforcing certain drug and immigration laws.

Obama Administration says it won't enforce laws it doesn't like

Another thread on the issue: Federal laws Obama is ignoring enforcement while going after American law abiding citizens!

Thanks.. and this is my point to my fellow conservatives as well as lefties, that shit goes both ways. While you may cheer one that you like, don't bitch about the ones you don't like. It just doesn't work like that.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

...Who are we talking about?

Hypocritical partisans.

Can you be a little more vague?

Googly moogly.. how's that?

 

[Divine Wind]

Can you be a little more vague?

Yes, but that was a specific and accurate answer to your question....one you could have answered yourself if you had read the thread and weren't simply trolling.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Well, if true, I have no problem here.... he should uphold his duties.

But remember folks, that shit works both ways. Many of you on the left have no problem when your side sidesteps their sworn duties in order to "make a statement"

Really? When and where did that happen. ??Who are we talking about?

The Obama administration's decision to not enforce DOMA for starters...

They did not fail to enforce DOMA. Dome was in full force and effect until it was overturned. The federal government did not recognize same sex marriages or provide benefits until then. What they did was to choose not to use the resources of the Justice Department to defend it in court, a move perfectly within the administrations rights and not in violation of any law, court order, or the Constitution. Try again big guy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Obama administration's decision to not enforce DOMA for starters...

The Obama administration stopped defending DOMA, they didn't stop enforcement (i.e. it's application under the law). It took the Windsor decision because the federal government stopped enforcement and that was a court order.

Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act


>>>>

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, if true, I have no problem here.... he should uphold his duties.

But remember folks, that shit works both ways. Many of you on the left have no problem when your side sidesteps their sworn duties in order to "make a statement"

Really? When and where did that happen. ??Who are we talking about?

The Obama administration's decision to not enforce DOMA for starters...

They did not fail to enforce DOMA. Dome was in full force and effect until it was overturned. The federal government did not recognize same sex marriages or provide benefits until then. What they did was to choose not to use the resources of the Justice Department to defend it in court, a move perfectly within the administrations rights and not in violation of any law, court order, or the Constitution. Try again big guy.

Not according to CBS news:

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny," he said. "The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination."

 

[Divine Wind]

The Obama administration's decision to not enforce DOMA for starters...

The Obama administration stopped defending DOMA, they didn't stop enforcement (i.e. it's application under the law). It took the Windsor decision because the federal government stopped enforcement and that was a court order.

Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act


>>>>

Agreed, thus proving, once again, ProgressivePatriot is wrong.

the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Just broke on twitter.

Good for the Alabama Judicial Court

Way to go, guys.

ok----have some compassion -----he sacrificed himself for his
'beliefs'-----mock not

Good. Send that piece of shit packing, again.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The Obama administration's decision to not enforce DOMA for starters...

The Obama administration stopped defending DOMA, they didn't stop enforcement (i.e. it's application under the law). It took the Windsor decision because the federal government stopped enforcement and that was a court order.

Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act


>>>>

Agreed, thus proving, once again, ProgressivePatriot is wrong.

the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Since when does the POTUS get to decide the constitutionality of a law?

 

[irosie91]

Just broke on twitter.

Good for the Alabama Judicial Court

Way to go, guys.

ok----have some compassion -----he sacrificed himself for his
'beliefs'-----mock not

Good. Send that piece of shit packing, again.

ok ----do you believe that a doctor should be OBLIGATED to
perform an abortion just because abortion is LEGAL?

 

[Divine Wind]

Since when does the POTUS get to decide the constitutionality of a law?

Exactly, hence the hypocrisy of the LWers on this thread bitching about "selective enforcement".

 

[Frank'sRules]

Just broke on twitter.

Good for the Alabama Judicial Court

Way to go, guys.

ok----have some compassion -----he sacrificed himself for his
'beliefs'-----mock not

Good. Send that piece of shit packing, again.

ok ----do you believe that a doctor should be OBLIGATED to
perform an abortion just because abortion is LEGAL?

He doesn't get to write his own laws or disobey Supreme Court rulings. He did the same thing on that damn rock, disobeying a higher court. He's an unethical jerk. Kiss him goodbye.

 

[martybegan]

Well, if true, I have no problem here.... he should uphold his duties.

But remember folks, that shit works both ways. Many of you on the left have no problem when your side sidesteps their sworn duties in order to "make a statement"

Yep, things like Sanctuary cities.

 

[Frank'sRules]

The Obama administration's decision to not enforce DOMA for starters...

The Obama administration stopped defending DOMA, they didn't stop enforcement (i.e. it's application under the law). It took the Windsor decision because the federal government stopped enforcement and that was a court order.

Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act


>>>>

Agreed, thus proving, once again, ProgressivePatriot is wrong.

the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Since when does the POTUS get to decide the constitutionality of a law?

He didn't decide, he direct the AG not to defend what was probably unconstitutional. Fully within his rights just like CA refusing to defend their unconstitutional POS ban.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Well, if true, I have no problem here.... he should uphold his duties.

But remember folks, that shit works both ways. Many of you on the left have no problem when your side sidesteps their sworn duties in order to "make a statement"

Yep, things like Sanctuary cities.

Those are also totally legal. All it means is you don't ask, it makes policing the city harder, and you leave a job of the Federals up to the Federals.

 

[Divine Wind]

He didn't decide, he direct the AG not to defend what was probably unconstitutional. Fully within his rights just like CA refusing to defend their unconstitutional POS ban.

Nice quibbling and an attempt to derail, but the bottom line here is that it's hypocritical to voice opposition of one side for selective enforcement of laws then support it for one's own side.

Best to keep both sides within both the spirit and letter of the law.