- Dec 2013
- Beware of watermelons
First off, you didn't answer the question.
Why do you see it as valid to sue a company official because of how they do their job as compared to an elected official because of how they do their job?
How many times do I have to point out this is not really about "how they performed their duties" and actually about DENIAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS.
You keep ignoring what the true issue is to create this strawman argument that you have gone on and on about...
We actually agree that citizens should not be able to "seek damages" because of a disagreement on how "elected officials perform their duties".
Moreover, THIS CASE WAS NOT ABOUT DAMAGES. We're talking about compensation for LAWYER FEES.
You keep arguing about things that are not really what's going on...
Again, this is about CIVIL RIGHTS being denied.
There is no trend here for "disagreement" with how "elected officials perform their duties".
I often wonder how many right-wingers (or people who obviously act on their behalf) object to things BASED SOLELY ON FAILING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON.
Lord knows that there are too many right-wing talk radio pundits who make a living off of that...
This case never set any such precedent.
a) NO DAMAGES are involved.
b) This is NOT about a "disagreement" on "how elected officials perform their duties".
The courts recognize a civil right.
A government employee blocks that civil right.
Ergo, the lawsuit.
And there was and still is a disagreement that marriage is in fact a civil right and if the federal government has the authority to force a state to recognize this. This debate was going on when this person was elected to office. In fact before SCOTUS decided she was not allowed to sign those documents. Agree w/ this or not is is irrelevant. The argument goes that she believed she was doing what the people who voted for her wanted her to do. The people decided otherwise and she was removed. This is how it is supposed to work.
Damages/ lawer fees is purely semantics. The point is that the case is person who feels wronged VS the state. Not person who feels wronged VS elected official.