this is the new liberal Alinsky tactic. By not defending the law in court, and based on the Supreme Court saying that nobody had standing to defend Proposition 8 from California, then judges are simply going to automatically rule for homosexual marriage.
Is anyone else alarmed by this tactic, aside from the issue of homosexual marriage? If the liberals get away with this, they can simply get a lawsuit going against a law they don’t like, refuse to defend it, then the court overturns a law becuase nobody has standing. Our legal system is hanging by a thread with liberals doing this.
To: Dilbert San Diego
Is anyone else alarmed by this tactic, aside from the issue of homosexual marriage? If the liberals get away with this, they can simply get a lawsuit going against a law they dont like, refuse to defend it, then the court overturns a law becuase nobody has standing.
Fortunately, we don't need to worry about that in this case. Pennsylvania law allows the governor to select another state lawyer to defend the law if the AG won't. So standing isn't an issue here, and Pennsylvania can defend itself to the hilt.
Also, don't forget that the House of Representatives was allowed to defend DOMA all the way to SCOTUS - if they were really going to gut standing, they would have done so in that case as well.
The only reason they used standing to kick the Prop 8 case was to avoid striking down the law outright. This was a cheap dodge, but at least it allowed other laws to stay on the books. A very bad decision, to be sure, but the best they could do under the circumstances. It was either that or gay marriage for all.
posted on 07/11/2013 7:57:34 PM PDT
("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson