Discussion for article #223874
Give it up already. You lost.
16 Likes
āO ma gawdā.
1 Like
This asshole thinks he can intimidate county clerks now. The judgeās ruling didnāt specify there was a stay in issuing licenses. So for what itās worth, they arenāt breaking any laws as such. And until an order comes from the court on this as part of the ruling, or a decision as part of an appeals process, I donāt see how this AG can justify his unwarranted threats against these civil servants.
11 Likes
Do this shitrags come from a factory or something? He looks like Cooch.
3 Likes
Or maybe Van Hollen can turn the fire hoses on the dogs!
Love it.
You want it justified? Let me show you how itās justified.
Whatās going to happen to him for doing so? Censure? Prosecution? A stern talking-to?
1 Like
Van Hollen must have never heard the phrase:
āBeing on the wrong side of history.ā
Yoā J.B.-- laughingstock is not a positive thing.
jw1
2 Likes
āSo, depending on who believes theyāre married under the law and who doesnāt believe theyāre married under the law may cause them to get themselves in some legal problems that I think are going to take years for them and the courts to work out.ā
This has been worked out. Itās simple: if you have a marriage license, you are married. No stay means just that, āno stay.ā If you are a clerk and refuse to issue a license, then you should be charged with contempt of court.
Give it up bigots, the rest of the country realizes you are wrong.
12 Likes
Or those people could be seen as heroes
Itās all a matter of how much of a bigot one chooses to be.
As if equal rights for all people in the USA isnāt already something our Constitution is supposed to guarantee, and even the present Supreme Court agrees with.
Bigots in office, trying to scare people back into the dark ages, thatās just what Wisconsin needsā¦ RIGHT!
1 Like
Heās a thug, punching down.
4 Likes
A tantrum may be expressed in a tirade: a protracted, angry, or violent speech.[1][2]
1 Like
āāHe needs to call off the dogs and turn off the fire hoses,ā McDonell said of Van Hollen.ā
Bravo, Mr. McDonell! Short, sweet and illustrative of your point. A perfect response.
13 Likes
Huh? Heās supposed to be WI top legal authority, who doesnāt know how to follow the law. Heās making specious arguments not based on law, but his own boneheaded beliefs. Legal authorities in the state, even the ACLU might want to take his own ass to court based on his misleading these clerks and using his office to intimidate others while misrepresenting the law.
7 Likes
Iām pretty sure that in most states, even Wisconsin, intimidating or threatening a public official is a criminal act. Charge him!
2 Likes
The AG needs to be reminded that using a higher office to threaten subordinates is ILLEGAL.
11 Likes
OK, letās see it happen. Iāll waitā¦
Do you really think he will pay any sort of legal price for this? Give me a reason some sort of Cooch/Cruz/Whatever guy has to not do this.
What is the penalty? What negative effect will it have on him?
Scott McDaniel, youāre the man. Van Hollen, not so much.
2 Likes
Now let me seeā¦Is there any ruling a judge made that I might want to ignore??? How convenient would that be?
While I agree that the court made the right decision and that the clerks should be issuing licenses, Iām not seeing that the AG threatened āprosecution.ā When you characterize his statement as such, you undermine your own credibility. You allow him to easily and correctly show that you have taken his statement out of context. It seems to me that he was talking about legal problems likely to be faced by those who married. And until Scalia has his say, who knows?