Kim Davis

Have those mayors been court ordered to do so? (This is the distinction that matters.)

If so, and they still refuse due to their personal or religious conscious - then yes, they should resign. Or go to jail or be fined - whatever the judiciary believe will be most efficacious to win their compliance.

Again, I wonder if the same people would be so adamant in the Davis defense if the clerk were a Muslim imposing her personal or Islamic beliefs. The screeches of "Sharia" from many of the same defenders of Davis would be deafening.

I'd bet a paycheck their wouldn't be a rally outside the detention center when she was released, no Survivor blaring 'Eye of the Tiger' - and certainly no politicians mugging for the camera.

So, one should only follow federal law after being court ordered?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
So, one should only follow federal law after being court ordered?

Of course not, that's not what I said. But when comparing this case where someone actively defied a sitting judge to a city/mayor choosing not to enforce a law are wholly different.

This has already been addressed in this thread, I suggest you go read it before jumping to conclusions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Of course not, that's not what I said. But when comparing this case where someone actively defied a sitting judge to a city/mayor choosing not to enforce a law are wholly different.

This has already been addressed in this thread, I suggest you go read it before jumping to conclusions.
It's the same thing, except for the political beliefs of this administration. Who is going to order the Mayors to do enforce the federal law when they are all in lock step with them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I totally agree with that statement. Now, why don't you condemn Obama for the same thing......not following laws he doesn't agree with. He should either follow the law or resign. Right.

No LG, I don't really expect you to have the balls to answer the question.


I have previously dealt with this ridiculous argument. The two are not remotely analogous. You know this, yet you just use it is an opportunity to launch your standard Obama screeching.

So boring. Get a new schtick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
It's the same thing, except for the political beliefs of this administration. Who is going to order the Mayors to do enforce the federal law when they are all in lock step with them?

tumblr_mo5a0kj7KI1ry46hlo1_500.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
I have previously dealt with this ridiculous argument. The two are not remotely analogous. You know this, yet you just use it is an opportunity to launch your standard Obama screeching.

So boring. Get a new schtick.

So you're saying this woman refusing to follow the constitution as defined by SCOTUS is different from Obama refusing to follow immigration laws that he doesn't like.

Please tell me just how these differ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
What laws are you talking about.

There are so many laws the POTUS can't coceivably execute on all of them, and historically POTUS has nullified law by refusing to execute. Some people disagree with this but others say it's part of checks and balances.

Immigration. No. That is not a part of checks and balances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Again, the POTUS cannot conceivably execute on every law.

Remind me what immigration was like under W? HW Bush? Reagan?

Hold on you are suggesting the physical impossibility of "executing" every law is the same as an executive decision to stop deporting certain groups of people or guidance to stop enforcing law x, y or z?
 
You are informed that the Obama administration changed the definition of what counts as deportation right? One example is turn aways at the border where not counted by previous administrations while Team Obama includes them in the count.

Did not know that. Thanks
 
Hold on you are suggesting the physical impossibility of "executing" every law is the same as an executive decision to stop deporting certain groups of people or guidance to stop enforcing law x, y or z?

No. I already discussed presidential nullification.
 
Did not know that. Thanks

Some detail

High deportation figures are misleading - LA Times

Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.


On the other side of the ledger, the number of people deported at or near the border has gone up — primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency's deportation statistics.

The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under those previous administrations than it is now.

The shift in who gets tallied helped the administration look tough in its early years but now may be backfiring politically. Immigration advocates plan protests across the country this week around what they say will be the 2 millionth deportation under Obama — a mark expected to be hit in the next few days. And Democratic strategists fret about a decline in Latino voter turnout for this fall's election.

:hi:
 
I agree with you. So let me ax you this: Should the newly converted muslim flight attendant who refused to serve alcohol be fired?

Haven't we already discussed this?

If she refuses to agree not to interfere with her fellow flight attendants serving alcohol, then yes, she shouldn't be working there.
 
I agree with you. So let me ax you this: Should the newly converted muslim flight attendant who refused to serve alcohol be fired?


Close call. It's a bit different than the other examples because it's not a government job involving a specific obligation to do a specific thing. On the other hand, I think it plausible that an employer would worry why she is keeping a job that she says has an offensive aspect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

VN Store



Back
Top