What a Liberal Lawless Country Looks Like


8619185_448x252

Laws? Sure. Liberal Attorney Generals will happily defend laws that they agree with. If there’s a law compelling religious groups to offer abortion on demand, they will bleed for it. But if there’s a law that they disagree with… good night and good luck.

Pennsylvania’s attorney general, Kathleen Kane, said on Thursday that she would not defend the state against a lawsuit to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage.

Ms. Kane, a Democrat, traveled from Harrisburg, where the suit was filed in Federal District Court on Tuesday, to make her announcement at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. She quoted from Pennsylvania’s Constitution forbidding discrimination “against any person” and said that “disparate treatment” based on race, religion and ethnic origin were no longer tolerated, and “it is now the time here in Pennsylvania to end another wave of discrimination.”

“I looked at it this way, the governor’s going to be O.K.,” she said. She wondered, she added, who would represent “the Daves and Robbies, who represents the Emilys and Amys?”

“As attorney general,” she said, “I choose you.”

Who is going to represent all the gay rights defendants? Their laws. And the ACLU. Kane’s job is to represent the people of Pennsylvania. The repulsive Kane ran for Attorney General, yet also wants to function as a legislator, making up her own laws as she goes along, and treats her lawlessness as a campaign rally event.

If Kathleen Kane finds that her job violates her principles, she should resign it. But that kind of thing is for old-timey honorable folks. Politicians don’t resign anymore. Unless it’s as a ploy after a scandal. Instead they announce that they just won’t do their jobs… for the people.

Kane, a Hillary Clinton minion, raised nearly 6 million dollars to run for a job that she had no intention of doing, campaigning on a pledge to investigate Jerry Sandusky to score some points, and then turning around and preparing to use her non-work to run for Governor.

So Kathleen Kane is currently being paid $152,443 for a job she won’t do. Don’t the taxpayers of Pennsylvania deserve a refund?

  • glpage

    Wasn’t California’s Prop 8 a similar situation?

    • autdrew

      yes. The state did the exact same thing. The people passed a law that a court declared in valid & the state refuses to pursue it any longer. In CA a group of people got together to challenge the court & that was what the supremes ruled on (badly). They said those people have no standing to contest the courts ruling & threw it back to the same state that refused to fight. They didnt declare gay marriage legal in CA.
      But at the same time, on the other case, DOMA, they claimed that it is up to the people in each state to decide for themselve, not the govt. Totally scitzopheric

      • BSDN

        Not to mention one of the Cal judges that ruled against Prop. 8 was homosexual. But just like Kagan, there is no recusal/conflict of interest possible.

        Transparent.

        Hypocrisy.
        Synonymous with SSM

  • jakespoon

    No difference between these people and common criminals. John Dillinger thought robbing banks was fine, Al Capone thought bootlegging and murder was a business model.

    • Rocky Mountain

      I too condemn the public office holders that refuse to enforce laws or abide by the rules that frame their responsibilities. Then we must condemn the various sheriffs around the country who decide not to enforce gun laws.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Kane is an obvious criminal and scumbag but I have to ask: Are you people anti-gay? do you hate h0m0s? I’m asking you too, Greenfield. Seriously. You all come across as anti-gay bigots.
    Be a man and answer me. Believe me, I want to be wrong about this.

    • southwood

      I don’t hate homosexuals but I detest with all my being the idea of same sex marriage. It’s absolute insanity. What’s next – marriage between a man and his horse ? That’s after legalizing incest of course.

      How do you get the idea the posters and DG are homo-haters and bigots ? What is your definition of a bigot ? One who is against SSM ?

      You too “be a man” and tell us if you support SSM.

    • Gislia Jackson

      I only speak for myself. I don’t give a rat’s hiney what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, as long as they don’t cause harm to anyone else. Do I think that same sex marriage is wrong? Yes, I do. However–if a state decides to sanction it, I will respect it. I do not think that the federal government has the right or power to force same sex marriage upon the states, nor do I think it is right for a state that has not sanctioned same sex marriage to be forced to to recognize unions from states that have.

      Having said that…this is a non issue to me. As a Christian, I fully agree with the “let he who is without sin…” etc. etc. If gays wish to marry, I can disagree with that on religious grounds, but whatever sin they are committing (in my opinion) is between them and God, not between them and me. I’ve done some pretty rotten stuff in my lifetime, and I do hope that God forgives me for it. If two members of the same sex are genuinely in love–and I do know that this happens–then I hope that God forgives them, as I hope that he forgives me.

      I honestly don’t think that gays should be allowed to be married. On the other hand, I really don’t care if they are allowed to be married in all fifty states. It would irritate me, but it would irritate me a hell of a lot less than getting mayo on a freaking whopper that I have ordered without mayo would.