I think recall elections are stupid. Let them serve their term and then get rid of them if you don’t like them.
Fuck that shit. We’ve got to have a way to fix the problem if someone goes totally off the reservation after election.
Just the same as conservatives are doing now. Why are you surprised? This is the process. When conservatives are in power, they enrich their own, when liberals are in power, we enrich our own. Neither side believes in following the law enough to give the other one an advantage and as a liberal, I believe there are long lists of conservative examples of lawbreaking to make GOP whining music to my ears.
Yes, I’m glad that 2 people in Virginia is able to completely block the will of the electorate. Maybe they’re going it through a loophole, maybe its perfectly legal, but since I agree with the results, I support it.
The difference between conservatives and liberals, however, is that liberals usually get proven right by history. That, I think, is the biggest reason why those anti-gay marriage types are crying. They don’t care about the law and they will say every hypocrisy to get liberals to bend and “do things the right way” because they know the tipping point is almost here and there’s no way to put the genie back in the bottle. Once conservatives get in power, expect more of the same.
No, we’d be screaming because he was doing something wrong.
SSM is the right thing to do. Process is irrelevant.
That’s why you have terms. Letting the voters throw out anyone any time they change their minds is chaos.
When a Mennonite gets elected President on an anti-war platform and then three months after inauguration renounces his faith and starts threatening to nuke China if they refuse to start diverting half of their tax receipts to the US, four years is too long to wait.
This is refreshingly honest, and I appreciate it.
No, § 24.2-237 merely provides that any officer subject to the procedure has the right to demand a jury trial – but would a bench trial be better, or worse?
Less democratic, but in the instant case it seems that only analysis of law would be involved* - and the decision would presumably be appealable.
*It’s not like what the AG is doing is a secret.
thumbs up
There are plenty of other ways to deal with that situation. We have lots of safeguards built into the system.
If we had a presidential recall, Obama might be recalled today. What do you think about that?
Then when rightwingers do the same thing to get their way, and you don’t support it, don’t come crying about it.
The grounds for removal under § 24.2-233(1) include “For neglect of duty…” If he’s being booted for his refusal to defend the Virginia SSM ban as the predicate “neglect,” how is that anything other than a question of fact?
The issue is whether that constitutes neglect of duty. That’s a pure question of law - one of statutory interpretation, specifically. There are no facts in dispute.
I saw that movie!
No, I will come crying about it because I wouldn’t support their decision. I would stomp and complain and donate and vote to make sure right wingers can’t do that because their preferred rules are abhorrent. This isn’t a hypocrisy thing, I’m not saying only liberals get to break the law and I believe in the law, I’m saying that I want to make everything more difficult for right wingers and easier for liberals
If I could ban right wingers from taking government, at least the crazy Tea Baggers, I would.
What would you have done if you were in the middle of the Civil Rights movement? Would you tell Rosa Parks to get up and give up her seat because it was the law? Would you stand with protesters to block black kids from going to a white school? Would you vote as a judge to uphold the miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia? Don’t give me the BS that the laws itself were Unconstitutional or somehow illegal, all those actions taken by the protestors were illegal at the time of the action. You either can uphold it or change it, and it is a good thing that history changed it or else we’d be looking at MLK Jr. as just another rabble rouser.
The point is that some laws are bad. Yes, its hard to go against history, tradition, rule of law, and most of the population and declare that YOU KNOW BETTER but that’s what I’m doing. Herring knows better than the millions of people that voted to ban gay marriage. McAuliffe knows better than the Virginia electorate. Because bans on gay marriage are evil, inhuman, and violate the Constitution. Any fair and sane mind would judge it so and the sooner we get rid of those bans, the better. It doesn’t matter if we do it legally, it doesn’t matter if we do it properly, it only matters that everyone agree to ignore, banish, and eliminate those stupid laws in any way possible. If that means 2 people get to decide, then so be it.
Sure conservatives will try it for other things, and they have in the past. The important thing is not to give them any support, not give up on pushing against them, that every second of every day we make sure our actions are influenced by beating them and their heinous laws back because WE KNOW BETTER. And as long as we have the power on our side, as long as we continue to vote Democratic, then we will have the power to do that. Eventually they will give up, the tide will turn too much and the conservatives will not be able to do a damn thing about it. That is the goal and that is a good goal, to utterly rob them of power in any way we can
So no, I’m not going to hold my tongue of a right winger does it. They are wrong and I will challenge them in any way I can because I am right
Va. Const., art. IV:
I too am one for “fuck the rules” attitude if something wrong is going on, you should go outside the rules, find loopholes, etc, to correct it.
However, I fully support an AG and state government’s right to support whatever laws it wants to support in court. If that’s unconstitutional though, then I’d support a judge or the state assembly or whoever for kicking a negligent politician out of office for neglecting to do their duties.
In short, I have complicated views. I think that when something wrong is going on, you break a law to stop it.
A great example would be a young child who is drowning in a lake on the other side of a patch of grass that says “do not walk on the grass,” you can bet that I’d support anyone who chose to walk on the grass to save the child right away, rather than go through the official channels to find out whose rule it was, and if they could get permission to walk on the grass to save the kid, or blah blah blah you get it. I may also be in favor of them suffering the punishment of walking on the grass, but I still think it would be the right thing to do.
SSM is a fundamental right, and states denying it to their citizens are wrong. The gays are the people drowning. If the AG or whoever wants to walk on the “keep off the grass” gass in order to help us out, then yay for us, and too bad for the fucking grass. If the AG gets in trouble from the grass owner, then so be it, but he still has my support.
You’re right, it’s not hypocrisy. You think our system should involve more thuggery and use of raw power and less compromise and respect for the rule of law.
No thanks.
I agree completely. But that’s not what you’re doing here. Not every law is fundamentally unjust and requires civil disobedience to change. That’s a last resort. If you short-circuit that by not going through legal motions first, you threaten your legitimacy. Most civil rights struggles began by first working within the system to demonstrate that the system was fundamentally unfair, even though those first actions are forgotten.
I agree with Herrings’ decision. But it’s not just two people deciding. A court will decide. And I don’t think you believe a court shouldn’t hear this case and it should simply be left to Herring and McAuliffe either. Do you?
Even if you believe you’re right, that doesn’t mean you’re smart. Vesting so much power in a few people can come back to bite you later. A right-wing AG and governor could be elected in a few years and undo all your progress, and what could you say to the people to convince them that they shouldn’t have that power? Not much, since you’re the one who gave it to them. Process MATTERS. Sometimes it’s better to build support for a long-lasting policy that can survive than to get what you want as fast as you want without regard to the long term.
Sure conservatives will try it for other things, and they have in the past. The important thing is not to give them any support, not give up on pushing against them, that every second of every day we make sure our actions are influenced by beating them and their heinous laws back because WE KNOW BETTER. And as long as we have the power on our side, as long as we continue to vote Democratic, then we will have the power to do that. Eventually they will give up, the tide will turn too much and the conservatives will not be able to do a damn thing about it. That is the goal and that is a good goal, to utterly rob them of power in any way we can
So no, I’m not going to hold my tongue of a right winger does it. They are wrong and I will challenge them in any way I can because I am right
[/QUOTE]
Well, the thing is, our legal system already recognizes that someone who violates a law in an emergency like that shouldn’t be prosecuted for it, and wouldn’t be.
This is about violating a law that is unjust itself, not just as means to another. More like walking on the grass because it’s your human right to walk on grass or something.
Sure. Yet you can’t storm the local clerk’s office and grab a bunch of marriage licenses and pass them out. Nor can the AG order clerks to issue them. In the absence of legislative change, there’s no way to assert that right without a court ruling that it exists and must be respected, which is what will happen here. So I’m not sure why this is even an issue.
Me too, but only because I think it’s part of his job.