Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should SF's [very Handsome] Mayor Be Arrested?  
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2841 times:

In a continuation of this thread...

...should Mayor McHottie (i.e., San Francisco's Gavin Newsom) be arrested for his blatant violation of California law?




Or removed from his position, or otherwise? Hey, if one side can do it to Roy Moore for standing up for what he thought was an unconstitutional government order..........

67 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2797 times:

Perhaps he should... it would only bring more attention to the cause he is having the courage to stand up for... equal rights.

This is a straight man with a family who is not just talking about but acting on the principles of what this country is supposed to be about. As of 1:10pm EST 17 Feb, it hasn't yet been determined by the court whether his actions are a "blatant violation of California law". Attorneys for the city of SF are set to argue otherwise. If it is determined that what he did was indeed illegal, then it was a brave and bold act of civil disobedience that will go down in this history books alongside other notable examples such as Rosa Parks and the Boston Tea Party.

(edited for a typo)

[Edited 2004-02-17 19:15:36]


An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2782 times:

Yes. Elected officials in can't re-write laws (or ignore existing laws) because they don't like them.

I'd expect that everyone who's argued IMPEACH Bush over Guantanamo has the same position.

-76M


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2770 times:

it hasn't yet been determined by the court whether his actions are a "blatant violation of California law".

Wrong.

As the law stands, his actions most certainly are.


....what's being decided is whether said laws are constitutional or not.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7952 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2760 times:

I haven't heard anything about anyone wanting Mayor Newsom arrested. I don't know if a public official can be arrested in the state of California for not recognizing a statute that has no criminal stipulations for non-compliance.

Certainly it occurs often and I can't remember it ever being treated as a criminal action - usually there is some sort of direct legislative action against the official. In this case, the party with jurisdiction to do that would be the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, who are inherently unlikely to take any such action since all nine members have expressed support for Newsom.

If the State of California were to somehow bring administrative action against the city, which Newsom would be responsible for, I would of course support any punishment they legally deemed necessary for him. Doing so would further highlight the importance of this act of civil disobedience and perhaps even expedite the arrival of the inevitable day this issue sees in the State Supreme Court, which...also happens to be in San Francisco and not Sacramento.






If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2750 times:

I haven't heard anything about anyone wanting Mayor Newsom arrested.

...almost all of the decidedly conservative media has called for it (e.g., O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, etc)


I don't know if a public official can be arrested in the state of California for not recognizing a statute that has no criminal stipulations for non-compliance.

Governor Armhold Musclehugger, as well as the President and various other federal officials, have the authority to throw the gorgeous official in the slammer.....


[Edited 2004-02-17 20:15:21]

User currently onlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8494 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2746 times:

Judge Roy was removed from the bench for violating a court order, pretty much like how Newsom's violating the laws of the state. But there are well-known procedures for that. I'm not sure how you "impeach" a mayor.

He needs to ditch the mousse. The slicked back hair doesn't help his credibility any.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7952 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2742 times:

Federal officials have no authority to throw a local government official in jail for non-compliance with a state statute. Neither does the Governor - the legislature would have to bring action against the city and county of SF. And I doubt the governor would step in anyhow, he's been mum on the issue, lest he anger the California GOP any further with his repeated statements in support of gay rights.

The media can call for whatever they want, but it doesn't do anything for their knowledge of civil procedure. Judge Moore violated an existing court order - which is a criminal action. Again, Newsom is violating a state law that carries no criminal stipulations for non-compliance, e.g. the aforementioned action from the lege that would be necessary.











[Edited 2004-02-17 20:24:26]


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2736 times:

it hasn't yet been determined by the court whether his actions are a "blatant violation of California law".

Wrong.

As the law stands, his actions most certainly are.



Semantics. The California Constitution would be the supreme law of that state, would it not?



An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2729 times:

Also ConcordeBoy, the law you are citing states only that opposite sex marriages are recognized in the state of California. It doesn't say anything about criminal penalties for a municipality issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

If you are not a lawyer in the State of California, you may want to consider rephrasing your one-worded answers to reflect that you're expressing your opinion.



An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2728 times:

Typing my last response while Aaron747 was typing his... sorry for the similarities.


An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2714 times:

It doesn't say anything about criminal penalties for a municipality issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

In your zeal to contradict, you seem to have imagined me asserting that it did...  Insane


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7952 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2706 times:

Newsflash: an SF judge has delayed a decision on the matter until Friday.


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2710 times:

Not wanting to stir up too much political controversy, I'll just add:
He looks like a nerd. I wouldn't give him a second glance.
Who is calling him Mayor McHottie?


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29705 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2699 times:

Well you don't want to for practical rather then legal reasons.

The law is that his actions are illiegal, and unless that law is challanged to that very screwed up state constitution that California has (I don't doubt that it will), it is the law that will be enforced.

But you arrest him, or at the very least cite him and you will have a media frenzy you won't believe. I would go so far as to say that a riot in SF could be possible.

Why stir the pot?



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2684 times:

Why stir the pot?

To get your name out.

Ahhhhnold and Bush don't need it.... but who outside of California cared/knew who [the remarkably attractive for an old guy] Gavin Newsom was before any of this?


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29705 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2684 times:

Again Bush isn't involved, this is a state case.

And Arnold for one, doesn't need the name recognitions, and two is pretty liberal when it comes to social issues like this.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7952 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2680 times:

Please enlighten us as to how the State of California's constitution is screwed up?


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineUsairwys757 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2665 times:

You have got to be shitting me, the title of this thread itself is just sickining. But I guess I would expect it from none other than ConcordeBoy.

User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2651 times:

>>In your zeal to contradict, you seem to have imagined me asserting that it did... <<


Oh gee, then I must have totally misread the topic of this thread that you started...

"Should SF's [very Handsome] Mayor Be Arrested?"


 Insane



An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlineIflyatldl From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1936 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2622 times:

No, he shouldn't be arrested. All that's happening is that Mayor Newsom is trying to draw attention to California's law and I guess he among many view it as hypocritical to honor Domestic Partners benefits (City of SF) and not have a law that reconizes Gay Partnerships in the same way it reconizes hetrosexual marrige. I wish them luck, but one thing to remember: it's an election year (I'm not sure if SF is slated for city/municiple elections or not), and I'm sure he has constituants/supporters to answer to if he hopes to remain in office. In Georgia, we're going through something similar. Hopefully one day, an agreement can be reached. Many of our laws do tend to be antiquated these days.  Big grin Just my two cents.  Smile


Ah, Summer, Fenway Park, Boston Red Sox and Beer.....
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2603 times:

What's amazing is the fact that the same people here who are defending the idiot mayor of San Francisco are the same ones would attacked and vilified Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama for refusing to move his monument of the 10 Commandments.

It is the same principle, and if Judge Moore was thrown out of office for disobeying the law, the mayor of San Francisco should be as well.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7952 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2607 times:

Please, engage some critical thinking before making a statement like the above.

It is not the same principle at all. Judge Moore didn't disobey some statute that already had its constitutionality in question - he chose to disavow the oath he swore to his position as a justice and defy a Constitutional principle established by 200 years of case law precedent AND then went and willfully ignored a court order ordering him to stop the former.

Mayor Newsom, on the other hand, is upholding the oath he swore to represent the citizens of San Francisco to the best of his ability, and in so doing, has chosen to defy a statute that not only discriminates against many of them, but was enacted in violation of the State Constitution of California. His actions are providing the perfect test case to challenge Prop 22's odious imposition of limited marital definition as this matter will certainly be heard before the state supremes in no time.

As has already been stated, should the state legislature choose to take action against the City and County of San Francisco, which Mayor Newsom would be obligated to take responsibility for by law, I would support any punishment they deemed necessary. In fact, I would welcome it, as it would likely expedite the case's arrival in state Supreme Court.

[Edited 2004-02-18 01:50:40]


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 48
Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2581 times:

I, once again respectfully disagree with you Aaron. Breaking the law is breaking the law. How much more cut and dry can it get than that? You can't cherry pick what is "ok" to break" whenever it happens to suit your particular set of circumstances. If that were the case, then we might as wall be a state of anarchy. Like I told you in our last argument, some laws can and perhaps should be changed. But breaking the law to make that point destroys your credibility if not your freedom not to mention galvanizing your opponents that much further.

Now that being said, you watch and see people. This is going to get ugly. Real ugly. It looks like the ideological divides are about to come to a head. One of two things is going to happen. Either its going to pass and you're going to see a whole lot more Matthew Sheppards and tear-gas and billy-club hatefests. Or if it doesn't, then look to see the gays essentially shoved back into the closets. But also a de facto ban on religion.

To answer the question at hand, yes I believe this guy should have some kind of punishment levied against him.



User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29705 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2578 times:

A constitution is normally a few pages of ground rules that laws must follow.

The California constitution is full of stuff that most states and countries normally don't put into their constitution, which is why it runs over 200 pages in length.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
25 Aaron747 : You may be right Matt, we'll just have to see. Hopefully reason prevails.
26 Post contains images Superfly : Aaron747: Not to be anal but there are 11 members on the Board of Supervisors, not 9. Greg: It was ConcordeBoy who called him McHottie. He has bad tas
27 Aaron747 : Gavin doesn't need to reach out to the 'progressive' wackos who voted for Gonzalez at all. If anything, those people need to be silenced. Their whinin
28 Post contains images Superfly : Aaron747: This move by Gavin certainly ate away a chunk of that vote. 47% of the voters can't be that 'wacko'. I wasn't a huge fan of Gonzalez (my 3rd
29 Jessman : I would agree with the Roy Moore statement. Maybe he should be removed from office, maybe he should be fined, but I don't think this is deserving of j
30 Superfly : Jessman: The Terminator doesn't want to touch this issue for reasons I pointed out in post #27. Terminator is also in favor of gay rights/Civil Union
31 Superfly : When I saw those hundreds of couples in line to offically get married, I saw people who were truely happy and finally making that next step in progres
32 Post contains images Iflyatldl : Agree with Gay marriage or not (I do, but I digress) it's refreshing to see a politician actually honor his word to his constituents. I wish him the b
33 L-188 : It still amazing that those that are supporting the mayor and his standing up for what he believes in and what is constituants belive in against state
34 Post contains images Iflyatldl : L-188: Please don't count me in that generalization...Moore also was acting on his passion, even against controversy. He(Moore) was held in contempt.
35 Post contains images Matt D : You know how that goes L-188: Judge Moore, being a heterosexual white Christian male is wrong by default. Why? Because he was a heterosexual white Chr
36 Aaron747 : What Moore believed in was counter to his responsibilities as a justice and defender of the Constitution! I didn't oppose the fact that he had the con
37 Maiznblu_757 : Thats my fling... Signed, Superfly.
38 Lucky727 : MattD - well, at least you get an 'A' for consistency - grouping "Cripples, Asians, Athesists [sic] and Pedophiles" (???!!!) - keep it up & you could
39 TWFirst : >>You know how that goes L-188: Judge Moore, being a heterosexual white Christian male is wrong by default. Why? Because he was a heterosexual white C
40 Aaron747 : Personal attacks do nothing for the seriousness of the issue at hand. Pardon me for allowing my debate experience to but in...but really...can we keep
41 Maiznblu_757 : I doubt Matt D is racist... He hangs with KROC now, and KROC likes Sistas...
42 TWFirst : So one must assume Matt and L-188 would have the exact same opinion of the Judge Moore situation if Moore were Muslim and he had a giant replica of th
43 North County : I personally think it was a ploy by the mayor to raise funds - what does a marriage license in S.F goes for Superfly? Times the number of licenses is
44 Aaron747 : Newsom is conservative? okay...... The illegal alien cost in SF? okay....think you need to look toward LA buddy. The Russian and Chinese communities h
45 North County : Aaron747 - Do you know how many Lic. they have and plan to issue during this period?
46 North County : Looks like it is 3000 x $80 = $240,000 "Gay and lesbian couples from Europe and more than 20 states have lined up outside the ornate San Francisco Cit
47 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : He is a wealthy white conservative after all... Newsome is wealthy, male, white, beautiful, and Christian..... but where on Earth are you getting "con
48 L-188 : So one must assume Matt and L-188 would have the exact same opinion of the Judge Moore situation if Moore were Muslim and he had a giant replica of th
49 Aaron747 : Not really - all of that will be irrelevant when the state Supreme Court overturns prop 22 as a result of this.
50 ConcordeBoy : all of that will be irrelevant when the state Supreme Court overturns prop 22 as a result of this you say that as if it would end there.....
51 Aaron747 : It would, relatively. With the absurd definition eliminated, all rights associated with marriage could be conferred to individuals as already provided
52 ConcordeBoy : in the previous reply, I meant that should Prop22 be struck down (as it just might) then you wouldnt even be able to count the nanoseconds until the F
53 Aaron747 : I think many Americans are innately suspect of such drastic, permanent change as a proposed amendment, and people like myself with a classical liberta
54 ConcordeBoy : It's a delicate matter no doubt... and not one of terrible expediency (i.e., even if they began the process tomorrow, we wouldnt see an ammendment; as
55 Aaron747 : To put it in language Bush should understand: you're either for equal protection and the Constitution, or you're not. I don't think the Americans supp
56 Rjpieces : I haven't really been following the news about this....Could somebody explain the San Fran mayor situation (objectively)? I know he is allowing gay co
57 Superfly : ConcordeBoy: Newsome is wealthy, male, white, beautiful, and Christian..... but where on Earth are you getting "conservative" from???? It's easy to be
58 ConcordeBoy : Hmm, I can see your point... particularly relevant to the goofball he ran against.
59 Aaron747 : Yes, San Francisco, the city where people demand affordable housing but then oppose highrise construction...the city where people would rather advocat
60 MD-90 : So one must assume Matt and L-188 would have the exact same opinion of the Judge Moore situation if Moore were Muslim and he had a giant replica of th
61 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : And besides, the citizens of Alabama are overwhelmingly Christian and wanted the statue there. So it's okay to go by the popular public sentiment in t
62 Aaron747 : What part of keeping church and state separate don't you guys understand, really? Take any Constitutional law class and you'll learn that the deists w
63 Post contains links and images Superfly : Aaron747: My comments carry more weight than yours because I live and work in San Francisco city proper and I pay taxes here. I am not a 'spectator'
64 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : Again, I will support Newsome 100% when he runs for statewide office Mewonders whether the gorgeous Newsom's career could survive his newfound reputat
65 Superfly : ConcordeBoy: Mewonders whether the gorgeous Newsom's career could survive his newfound reputation as a "maverick" ....we all see how well such a rap h
66 ConcordeBoy : But without appealing to the masses... just how far can one go, despite partisan favor?
67 TWFirst : >>Irrelevant. Take any basic law class and you'll learn that the Ten Commandments are the historical basis of Western law. Says so right in the textbo
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Should The Veil-wearing Teacher Be Sacked? posted Sun Oct 15 2006 18:05:17 by ThePRGuy
First To Be Arrested At The Vegas Meet? posted Sun Mar 26 2006 03:51:54 by FutureSDPDcop
What Should Osama Bin Laden's Punishment Be? posted Wed Nov 21 2001 22:13:22 by OPTIPLEX2001
How Should The 5 Trillion Dollars Really Be Used? posted Wed Feb 28 2001 04:45:43 by We're Nuts
SF Mayor Newsom Should Be Jailed posted Sun Feb 22 2004 04:01:38 by Matt D
Michigan Should Be #2 Regardless Of USC And Fla. posted Sun Nov 26 2006 02:03:02 by D L X
Should Religion Be "Adult Content"? posted Sun Nov 19 2006 20:54:54 by Joni
Dem Or Rep, We Should Still Be Scared. posted Wed Nov 8 2006 01:12:32 by 767Lover
Should We Be Scared Of This? posted Sat Nov 4 2006 06:38:53 by AndesSMF
Mayor Orders Ticket Quota For Cops; Mayor Arrested posted Thu Nov 2 2006 22:56:05 by KaiGywer