gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

Unless you are for big government with the resulting costs and intrusions into liberty Lieberman is not your guy.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

You are correct. He retired before he lost again.

Zophman Loc: Northwest

We are experiencing the hubris of this administration and it ain't good. Power corrupts and we are experiencing the results of this type of corruption. Faith in our government is diminishing and there is a building concensus to fix things that the mainstream doesn't yet see.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

For the sake of clarity, this is NOT at all what the Attorney General said. He did not tell the state Attorneys General to ignore any state laws. Holder did weigh in on a controversial discussion that has been going on for some time; were state Attorneys General obligated to defend their state's gay marriage bans when challenged in the courts, or as has been the case in a number of states (California for one, recently Oregon, and Virginia), could they decide to not defend the law? He stated that it is his opinion that they are not obligated to defend such laws if after thorough review they feel the law discriminates in a way that would be in violation of the Constitution. it is also important to note that Holder did not urge the state Attorneys General to refuse to defend such laws, and did suggest that the failure to defend a law should be a rare occurrence, and the decision to do so should be based solely on constitutional arguments, not personal or political policy. Given that a number of state AGs have already taken that position, it seems totally appropriate for the fed AG to comment, but he in no way urged, ordered, or suggested a policy for the state AGs to follow.

So, I have no reason to feel outraged, in that what was posted is simply factually wrong.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

Bullshit, you can say whatever you like but my post is factual correct. You can agree with his stand, support his stand and even promote his position but my post is an ACCURATE assessment of his comments.

BTW I do believe that you have no reason to be outraged.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Call BS all you want, but what you posted:

"Today our federal Attorneys General flat out told the states Attorneys General to ignore the law and went on to say that there were times when it was appropriate to ignore the laws the people institute."

is plain out NOT what he said at all. It may be your "assessment" of what he said, but it is not, in fact, what he said. And what he did say, indicates a very different position from what your statement would lead one to believe.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, or arguing for the sake of it. The issue in question is actually a very important one, and is rooted in a tricky legal and ethical dilemma. It deserves attention, and discussion. However if we are going to have discussion, it is important to report what was actually said.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

This is only a part of where the outrage of the people comes from.
The basis of the rage is when the libs change the definition of our language to mean what they choose to do an end run around the Constitution and at times Congress to pass laws that are blatantly violations against the Constitution and the people.
The saddest part is that the majority of the people (who know little to nothing about the Constitution because it hasn't been taught in schools for years) do not question what the regime puts out.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

I'm confused as to what definitions of the language you think I have changed.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

Well the US AG got up in front of the entire nation and told the states AG that if they felt a law was in THEIR OPINION unconstitutional or bad or whatever word you’d care to use it was okay to ignore it. I know this isn’t verbatim as I didn’t record the news conference but the bottom line is he said there were circumstances in which the laws of a state could and even should be ignored. Now you want to turn that into something other than what it is which is defiance of the law. If the law is bad we have ways to change it I’d suggest that we change or modify bad laws not ignore them. We already have enough criminals ignoring laws they don’t want to follow and now the “good guys” want to adopt the same approach and you think that’s a good thing???

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Our disagreement seems to stem from the use of the word "ignore". You are insisting Holder urged the state's Attorneys General to "ignore" laws they feel are unconstitutional, whereas I am insisting he only stated that it was within the realm of the AGs responsibilities to decide not to mount a defense of a law if it was challenged in court, if after great scrutiny they feel the law will not pass the test of constitutionality.

He did not advocate that the AGs stop enforcing the law in cases where they have decided not to mount a court defense. Indeed, holder's past actions indicate he would propose the opposite. When he made a similar decision not to oppose the challenge of DOMA in the Supreme Court, he specifically ordered the DOJ to continue to enforce the law until a court decision was reached. This is actually a very key point, in that by continuing to enforce the law they ensure that the court challenge of the law will continue to move forward and be heard by the courts, regardless of the government's decision not to defend the law's constitutionality.

Holder's remarks seem to be prompted by the public criticism of those state AGs who believe it is within their responsibilities to decide if a defense of gay marriage bans should be made by their state and have decided that they can not mount a valid defense. The most recent example is AG Ellen Rosenblum in Oregon. Rosenblum was part of the unanimous court decision upholding Oregon's gay marriage statue in 2008. Now, six years later and after a number of key Supreme Court decisions, Rosenblum's office has decided that there are no constitutional arguments they can offer in defense of Oregon's law that the SC has not already heard and already rejected. It is not a matter of deciding to "ignore" the law; it is a matter of deciding they have no defendable case to offer in the court challenge of the law. A reasonable analogy would be a District Attorney, or state or federal prosecutor that decides they will not move forward in the prosecution of a supposed crime because they "don't have a case". (Rosenblum has also ordered that the law continue to be enforced, thus ensuring the challenge will continue to be heard, BTW).

Here is the transcript of Holder's remarks: http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2014/ag-speech-140225.html

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

I didn't claim that you changed anything. I was elaborating on your post.