Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoda
The New Haven case sounds like the Nuremberg defense to me. We were just following orders. You can't do what is wrong just because it is convenient. The problem is that New Haven was going to be sued either way. The chose to go the PC way rather than the right way. The judge would not let the case be heard. New Haven was wrong. They shoulh have done what was right and let the federal government sort it out. Perhaps we would have ended up with a better law.
As far as her statement goes....... she said what she said. She said what she meant. Don't forget the other statements that she made like the one about making law.
She is what she is. We need to honest about things like this. We can't let people double-speak is into capitulation.
Yoda
A member of the loyal opposition
|
The problem is, it doesn't work that way. When you have two (or more) conflicting laws -each basically nailing you to the same penalty - you try to find some way where you can avoid being nailed by one, and lessen the potential of being nailed by the other, so even if you end up in court, at least you can show you tried in good faith to work through an untenable situation.
"Letting the federal government sort it out" - Who? Congress with a <15% approval rating and moves at the pace of snail? The Courts? All on your dime, as legal fees just keep adding and adding no matter whathappens, as there's always another court after the one you just finished at?
What this really shows is that the <15% approval rate Congress - filled with folk with 15-20-30-40 years in office - just gets folk more at each other's throats than make things better. The comment that folk must work at the local level to get better representatives is dead on the money. Until Congress is flushed out of deadwood who are too lazy to read the legislation they vote on, the "New Haven" type cases keep a-coming at a greater and greater rate.
I don't care who the judge is, or what their personal leanings on issues are. I just want the judge to try as best as a human being can, to be impartial and apply the law when it's direct, and make some sense of the law when it is conflicting. I may not agree with how they tried to sort out legislative messes, but I can respect when they make a good faith effort.