search
top

Mini News Links

For Monday:

Daryl Metcalfe wants to impeach Kathleen Kane for refusing to defend the state’s marriage laws. Just the kind of thing we want Corbett to have to deal with as we head into a shaky re-election campaign.

Gun T-Shirt ruines Joan Peterson’s vacation, and it looks like the Ugly American may be an ugly Australian. Yes, it’s an offensive T-shirt I think someone would have to be a jerk to wear, but usage is different in other cultures, and someone noticed this looked like non-American usage of the c-word. Don’t let your bigotry get the better of you on vacation!

Looks like another showdown is shaping up in Illinois. They won’t leave well enough alone.

The War on Women continues.

The front-runner in the New York Mayor’s race thinks Bloomberg didn’t go far enough on gun control. He doesn’t think there’s enough socialism to Bloomberg’s activism.

Another school shooting in Nevada.

UPDATE: Colorado wrestles with guns in pot stores. Federally it’s going to be problematic, because selling drugs is a federal crime, and there are sentencing enhancements if you have a gun with you. Additionally, there are federal crimes for carrying a firearm during the commission of other federal crimes.

19 Responses to “Mini News Links”

  1. Dave says:

    Didn’t Greece host the 2011 IPSC worlds? I bet Joan would freak if she knew that.

  2. Andy B. says:

    Why are we blessed with so many asshats like Daryl Metcalfe, who work at associating our gun rights with all the reasons the general voting population is turning against the Republican Party? His last high-profile antic (that I know of) was, using a House procedural move to keep an elected, openly gay House member from making a statement on the floor. I’m sure for those not already committed to a position, his bundling of the RKBA with his utter lunacy really helps to advance our position.

    • Andy B. says:

      Oh, and I forgot to harp on my frequent theme: You will notice Metcalfe is taking this step and expending his energy over an LGBT issue, and not because of any of Kane’s anti-gun, anti-2A antics, which would arguably have been a more plausible case. Guess you can tell what is most important to our Best Pro-Gun Legislator in The State.

      • Patrick H says:

        Agreed. If he was doing this for gun rights, fine. But this is a losing battle.

      • HSR47 says:

        ” and not because of any of Kane’s anti-gun, anti-2A antics”

        Make the case for impeaching Kane based solely on her actions on the 2nd amendment front.

        If that case is solely based on her actions regarding reciprocity, I see little hope of it holding up in court. To put it simply, the legislature has given the AG the authority to enter into reciprocity agreements; The courts are likely to rule that modifying existing agreements is included in the delegated authority. In short, it’s a non-starter.

        On the other hand, when it comes to the Commonwealth’s marriage laws, Kane clearly has the duty to defend them in court, and she clearly refused to carry out that duty. In short, it’s the closest thing we have to a case to get her out of office. The real question is which is worse: using this as the means to get her out of office, or having her remain in office (especially considering that she’d likely use it as a springboard to a higher office, such as governor, congresswoman, and/or senator).

    • A state attorney-general is supposed to defend the state’s laws, even if they are personally disagreeable. That is one of the functions of a state attorney-general.

      The notion that the “general voting population” is turning against the Republican Party because of gay marriage is quite a stretch. There are certainly a few libertarians in the U.S., and a lot of liberals (far more than libertarians), but there are a lot of social conservatives too.

      • Sebastian says:

        I think it is killing them with voters under 40.

        • HappyWarrior6 says:

          A genuine libertarian position would be to keep government out of defining civil marriage as a whole. To me I see the GOP either adopting that approach (not endorsing it) or continuing as they have.

          Forcing people to agree with gay/bi/whatever floats marriage is a losing proposition for the right and would be a tool the left uses.

        • Andy B. says:

          And in some cases, under 70. . .

      • Andy B. says:

        First I’ll say that HappyWarrior6 is closest to the right answer, so far. Marriage should be treated as nothing more than a contract between individuals by The State, and those individuals should write the contract. If they want to use a contract their church (or their bowling team) endorses, that is their choice. The The State should be the arbiter of last resort for contract disputes.

        But something that has been puzzling me is, what does a public official’s oath to “defend the constitution” mean, if it doesn’t mean they will exercise their own judgment and conscience regarding whether the laws they are charged with enforcing are constitutional, and “defend the constitution” by declining to enforce those laws they judge to be unconstitutional? Especially in consideration of the principle that an unconstitutional law is not, and never was, law. A public official with a sincere belief that a law is unconstitutional, would in effect be declining to enforce a law that doesn’t exist.

        • Andy B. says:

          Overnight it occurred to me that I should add, that if an attorney general declined to enforce or defend an anti-gun law because they believed it violated the Second Amendment and/or the state constitution, we would probably applaud them to high heaven as true patriots. If we would, we have to apply the same principle when an attorney general applies the same standard with an issue for which we don’t agree with their interpretation of constitutionality.

        • Jake says:

          This^^^. Plus, any attorney has a duty to NOT pursue a case if they believe it has no legal merit.

          If a state attorney-general believes, based on legal analysis, that a law is unconstitutional, their job is to advise the legislature of this, and not to attempt to defend that law.

      • Andy B. says:

        “there are a lot of social conservatives too”

        True, and I’ll even acknowledge you can be a social conservative without being an asshat about it. But high-profile representatives of the genus like Metcalfe making fools (not to mention fascists) out of themselves on the floors of legislatures are, IMO, not advancing the fortunes of their party. I can’t imagine what his district is like, that it keeps reelecting him, but from other parts of the state I hear people quipping that it illustrates that Pennsylvania is “Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between.” Except his district is west of Pittsburgh.

        • Sebastian says:

          I recall seeing the demographics of that district somewhere. It’s very rural and pretty old. I doubt most voters in his district have a lot of affection for gay rights. Metcalfe is a pretty classic demagogue, but I doubt very many people in his district think poorly enough of it to give him the boot.

          • Andy B. says:

            Not saying there is a connection, but an aunt and uncle of mine lived out there back in the 1920s and were members of the Ku Klux Klan. Of course, in the 1920s lots of people in Bucks County were members of the Klan.

            • HSR47 says:

              The KKK is, was, and forever shall be the terrorist wing of the DEMOCRAT party.

              I’m sick of seeing this “republicans are the KKK” bullshit spewed by every leftist in sight. Learn history or GTFO.

  3. Bryan S. says:

    I don’t think Corbett needs any assistance sinking himself, because of his equation of gay marriage and incest.

    I know people who were fine with him on most issues just up and said No to voting for him because of it.

  4. Sigivald says:

    On the Colorado thing, there’s also the Gun Control Act problem.

    Isn’t it illegal to even possess a firearm if one is an “unlawful user [or addict]” of a controlled substance?

    With no exception for “but it’s legal in my State!” that trumps the Federal law? All use of marijuana is, to my knowledge, simply unlawful under Federal law.

    This is stupid, but that’s never stopped a prosecution before.

    • HSR47 says:

      To a degree, this is where state legislation criminalizing the enforcement of certain federal statues that contradict state law presents some very interesting questions.

top