quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 8, 2015 17:08:42 GMT -5
So now being able to recognize the difference between what Bush/Obama did and what Kim Davis did is selective ignorance? Okay.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 8, 2015 17:25:37 GMT -5
In Kim Davis' case she claims to be acting out of principled convictions. Taking her at her word, she is refusing to enforce the law of the land in her official capacity and this is violating her oath of office. I have said she needs to resign where principle interferes with fulfilling her duties.
Mr. Obama is refusing to enforce deportation laws, presumably out of principled belief that they are wrong.
Hmmm...
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,253
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 8, 2015 19:28:49 GMT -5
This just in. Bush is no longer President. The man ignoring immigration laws as we speak is Mr. Obama Prosecutorial discretion is not the equivalent of ignoring the law. Please read the linked discussion on that subject. Moreover, Davis's refusal to exercise her ministerial duty to issue marriage licenses is not analogous to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Earlier, you posted correctly that Davis should resign if she cannot issue marriage licenses and carry out her sworn duties. Surely you are not suggesting Obama should resign instead of exercising prosecutorial discretion regarding the enforcement of immigration laws? The decisions to refrain from taking actions are not even remotely analagous.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 8, 2015 19:50:30 GMT -5
Right. I get it. Hold the torch and mount the battlements in defense of Barry's principles.
Those who approve of Obama's ignoring the law can defend it as prosecutorial discretion.
I make no such defense of Ms. Davis. She is ignoring the law to suit her principles. That is wrong. So is Mr. Obama refusing to enforce immigration law.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,253
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 8, 2015 20:01:39 GMT -5
Right. I get it. Hold the torch and mount the battlements in defense of Barry's principles. Those who approve of Obama's ignoring the law can defend it as prosecutorial discretion. I make no such defense of Ms. Davis. She is ignoring the law to suit her principles. That is wrong. So is Mr. Oba refusing to enforce immigration law. I can only assume you are not a lawyer. You have offered no substantive argument to my points. In fact, the prosecutorial discretion exercised by Obama is not uncontroversial, if you had bothered to read the link I provided. However, OLC's legal opinion provides support for his position.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 8, 2015 20:07:48 GMT -5
You support his action because you approve of it. Please have the decency to admit that. I will admit that I oppose his decision and my distaste for it is colored thereby.
I have not said they are the same thing. It isthe willingness to cover for it or decry it that exposes one's bias on the topic.
I will admit mine.
For the record, I have practiced law for 26 years.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,253
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 8, 2015 20:15:35 GMT -5
You support his action because you approve of it. Please have the decency to admit that. I will admit that I oppose his decision and my distaste for it is colored thereby. I have not said they are the same thing. It isthe willingness to cover for it or decry it that exposes one's bias on the topic. I will admit mine. For the record, I have practiced law for 26 years. You make many assumptions about my views on immigration reform. If you approach this as a legal matter you can't truly believe that Obama's nonaction, (i.e., prosecutorial discretion) is the equivalent of Davis's failure to carry out a purely ministerial duty. Your recent posts do not reflect any lawyer-like reflection on the matter but more of an emotional reaction. So, I am not "covering" for anything. Thinking like a lawyer in assessing the two circumstances, I conclude that Obama has not violated his oath of office while Davis has. It's a shame when one's biases relieves one of the ability to think logically. Indeed, it was you who brought up immigration enforcement as if it were equivalent merely as a vehicle to criticize Obama. Why did you need to do that?
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 8, 2015 20:20:50 GMT -5
A fair and reasoned post. Am I emotional about what I perceive to be the President's abdication of duty ? I am.
Do I understand the two situations are not identical? I do.
Do I think Obama is acting out of principle? No.
Does he have legal cover? Of course.
Have I always said that Ms. Davis is wrong? I have.
Thank you for not going ad hominem.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,253
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 8, 2015 20:23:11 GMT -5
A fair and reasoned post. Am I emotional about what I perceive to be the President's abdication of duty ? I am. Do I understand the two situations are not identical? I do. Do I think Obama is acting out of principle? No. Does he have legal cover? Of course. Have I always said that Ms. Davis is wrong? I have. Thank you for not going ad hominem. Okay, Go Hoyas!
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Sept 30, 2015 9:29:55 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on Oct 1, 2015 0:21:05 GMT -5
I thought a couple of these were interesting, particularly #2/#3, although I don't think you can explain it away like Martin tries to with #2/#3 when you won't explain why you had this meeting with her or admit to it publicly : papalvisit.americamedia.org/2015/09/30/the-pope-and-kim-davis-seven-points-to-keep-in-mind/#7 he's just wrong on though. Martin makes the point that Mark Wahlberg meeting the Pope doesn't mean that the Pope liked the movie "Ted". Mark Wahlberg is known for a lot of things. Kim Davis is known for pretty much just one, and when she says "this validates everything" she's not saying it validates her three divorces, she's saying it validates her not issuing marriage certificates. And she's right - that's exactly what arranging a meeting with her does, even if it is double-secret on the down low and something the Vatican doesn't want to admit to later - it gives tacit support to her position and grandstanding.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 1, 2015 4:39:34 GMT -5
Maybe the Pope was offering her forgiveness for her bigotry...
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 1, 2015 7:51:31 GMT -5
Pope meets with the murdering Castro brothers, liberals don't complain. Pope meets with misguided Kentucky woman, the world is coming to an end.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 1, 2015 8:30:31 GMT -5
Perhaps he was offering forgiveness for a half century of murderous oppression...
It is all just a matter of perspective...
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Oct 1, 2015 9:16:59 GMT -5
Meeting with someone is not endorsement.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 1, 2015 9:46:15 GMT -5
She was just securing annulments for all her other marriages.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on Oct 1, 2015 10:12:49 GMT -5
Meeting with someone is not endorsement. Inviting someone for a private audience isn't nothing. The part I don't get it is the unwillingness to : - confirm or deny - explain what happened - explain a position It's not like the Pope has a hard time taking unpopular stances.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 1, 2015 10:25:11 GMT -5
Maybe, just maybe, the Pope does not feel compelled to talk to the media about this. I am quite sure he wished Ms. Davis had the same good sense.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on Oct 1, 2015 10:37:23 GMT -5
Maybe, just maybe, the Pope does not feel compelled to talk to the media about this. I am quite sure he wished Ms. Davis had the same good sense. Why? She met with the Pope despite what her own Church might have thought about it, as far as I've seen she's only told the truth about it, and the quotes I've seen from her are actually pretty humble. What does she have to be ashamed of or hide about this? I don't agree with her at all, and I certainly think emerging from jail to the strains of "Eye of the Tiger" is grandstanding, but I don't see why she's acting badly at all here in meeting the Pope or talking about it.
|
|
|
Post by WilsonBlvdHoya on Oct 1, 2015 11:32:11 GMT -5
Pope meets with the murdering Castro brothers, liberals don't complain. Pope meets with misguided Kentucky woman, the world is coming to an end. www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/30/why-no-one-should-be-surprised-that-pope-francis-met-with-kim-davis/?tid=sm_fbI'm not upset he met with her. I'm upset with the Machiavellian way the meeting was arranged (at the behest of the UN rep, in secret). He openly met with the order of nuns suing re Obamacare/religious liberty, no surprise there. The Vatican reps in the US knew the media firestorm that would erupt if this mtg went public..... And FWIW, I was especially upset about the physical backdrops of some of Francis' open-air Masses in Cuba (massive murals and sculptures of Che, just as-if not more- bloodthirsty than the Castros, behind the altars). Someone in the Vatican should have anticipated the ugly visuals/contrasts of Holy Eucharist celebrated before the iconography of a murderer....
|
|