Editorial shorts
She takes her oath seriously
Dr. Karen Remley’s resignation Thursday from her post as Virginia’s health commissioner gives the lie to the insulting claim by self-proclaimed family values politicians that new abortion clinic regulations are intended to protect the health and safety of women. …
Even routine medical procedures carry risk
Sometimes awful things happen during what is supposed to be a routine, safe procedure. Such was the case two years ago, when Jacobi Isiah Hill, a 6-year-old Henrico County boy, went to Virginia Commonwealth University Pediatric Dental Clinic to have crowns put on several teeth. …
Did Flaccavento and Griffith get lost?
Candidate debates are useful only if voters can watch, but the candidates in the 9th District seem to be avoiding exposure. Rep. Morgan Griffith and challenger Anthony Flaccavento will debate three times, none convenient for most voters. …
Continue reading these editorial shorts.
October 20, 2012 - 8:05 AM
Even as you continue to create such images as “threaten” & “coerce” your logic is convoluted:
“…and threatened board members if they refused to comply, saying he would not defend them in court. It remains unclear who would have standing to sue if health care providers were allowed to continue doing their jobs, but the board gave in.”
If it “remains unclear who would have standing to sue”, where is the threat? Cuccinelli made clear to those concerned that if they acted outside of their legal mandate, which in his professional opinion as AG would be the case if they ignored the clear intent of the law, the state might not be able to protect them in court. Sounds like good advice.
So what you’re saying, Jim, is that the state’s AG, who has the job of enforcing laws on the book, told board members that if they violate the laws on the book he would be unable to defend them, because it is his job to enforce the laws on the book. is that about it?
The critical point here is why hospitals are “grandfathered” and clinics are not. The double standard is so blatant that only those whose motive is to shut down the clinics refuse to admit it. Remley has the principles that the AG lacks. That is crystal clear. Backdoor abortion bans sicken a free nation, even more than safe, legal abortions do. Abortion is an act of desperation and this “law” is partisan authoritarian bully politics.
3 – Sandi, you are in favor, then, of the notion of nullification?
#2 About it.
#2 ‘Hoo….that, and the RTEB (and RT) & others sensationalizing, using unfounded scare tactics, especially as we approach the election.
Dems make mistakes & have differences of opinion. The GOP “threatens”, “coerces” & “declares war on women”…..(keeping them in “binders”).
The RTEB is as predictable as the day of the week. Can they & the dems always be right….or might there be some political bias.
Maybe my head is fuzzy today, but what, in my complaint of a state using backdoor tactics to shut down a federally protected right, says I favor “nullification” to you?
An editorial is giving your opinion. Opinion is bias. The RTEB by definition is supposed to be biased. Do you complain about the WSJEB? The Washington Times Editorial Board? The Richmond Times Dispatch Editorial board?
Nothing about being biased means you are wrong.
#8 If you think: “Opinion is bias”, then you prove my point.
No, Mrs. Saunders, opinion is not (necessarily) bias. Opinion is based on thought, bias is predetermined “ideas”… dogmatic, prejudiced, conclusions toward a desired end.
It is the very definition & exemplification of the means justify the ends.
Look up nullification, Sandi. And consider that there may be federal laws you don’t support.
Thanks Sensei, but I know what nullification is and there are plenty of federals laws I do not like; that has nothing to do with my support for the Federal government having the need for national laws. This case is a crying case in point.
Jim Lucas, as usual you want to play semantic games.
If opinion is “a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter”, then an editorial writer will undoubtedly be perceived as biased by those who disagree, for offering theirs.
There is NOTHING about writing an opinion editorial that requires a “neutral point of view”. I do not believe the opinion stated in the piece was especially biased in the first place, but there is no obligation to being neutral in offering an opinion. If you believe the facts are false, refute them. The presence or lack of bias that you agree with is not an issue, much less, the issue.
Opinions are not actions, and unless you are willing to concede Krauthammer, Will, Limbaugh, and Hannity are just as “guilty” of “the means justify the ends”, or even ‘the end justifies the means’, you are off base here totally. Unless you want editorials from the totally ignorant and uninformed (and some do appear to get their information there), bias is a part of editorials.
11…I’m not sure you do understand it, but we’ll set that aside.
You DO think people should be able to disregard, or ignore, or not enforce, state laws you don’t like, though. Put differently, if you see a state law that goes against a federal law, you feel state officials should be able to disregard it, right (bowing to the supremacy of the national government)? I know you have supported federal officials who have enacted policies specifically to circumvent federal laws. That, to me, looks, sounds, walks, and talks like the duck known as nullification.
Don’t think I’m being critical – I support states’ rights to nullify federal laws; and by extension, I support the rights of local governments to nullify state laws.
#12 Not at all Mrs. Saunders.
You said “Opinion is bias”. This presupposes a preconceived point of view & motive. The prefix here is the manifest point.
Yes, once an opinion is formed, then by definition it represents a bias. But to equate the two prior to the opinion is represents an agenda.
Hopefully one’s opinion is formed with some degree of empericism & objectivity, then used to express a more general point, or “bias”. Quite different than having one’s bias determine one’s “opinion”.
My point as to RTEB is that any person or entity that always expresses the same “opinion” has indeed done so from a preconceived POV & is therfore biased.
Understanding words & concepts & expresing them correctly is not “semantics”. Neither is mis-using or understanding them.
Wow, two semantic games at once, how do I get so lucky.
The definition of “nullification” is: “the action of a state impeding or attempting to prevent the operation and enforcement within its territory of a law of the United States”. I do not believe, or think “people should be able to disregard, or ignore, or not enforce, state laws” whether I like them or not. I also do not believe states should pass or attempt to pass laws which conflict with federal law. This has nothing to do with me liking the law on either level and everything to do with believing in the UNITED States of America. I do not believe in a loose confederation of states doing as they please.
I do not care if you are “being critical” – I do not support states’ rights to nullify federal laws; and I do not by extension, support the rights of local governments to nullify state laws. I do not.
The RTEB “bias” is well known, well documented and has plenty of precedent. There is no argument to be had here. Being biased does not make them wrong. It never has.
This law was conceived and formulated with bias. This law was voted on with bias, and this law is being enforced with bias. So whining about editorial bias speaking against it, is just plain sophistry IMO.
So did you agree when President Clinton advised homosexual service members to lay low when a (very bad) law forbade homosexual service members from serving (the policy known as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”? It was Clinton’s job, after all, to enforce the law, irrespective of how he felt about it. His DADT policy was in essence,a form of nullification.
Trying not to “violate” a stupid federal law is not the same as nullification by a state. Just as the Obama administration not defending DOMA is not the same as nullification by a state. Why are you parsing and pretending it is? The “purpose” of the stupid DADT was for the government not to ask and the gay military member not to tell, why was Clinton’s “advice” out of line? We had to work long and hard to overturn DADT, likewise, we have worked hard to have DOMA overturned as bad laws should be. The Executive branch deciding not to defend or to speak against a federal law is on the road to overturning it, it is still not nullification in the most strict “states’ rights” definition. I think you are mixing issues and I do not know why.
#17 As is Obama’s position on DOMA (immigration, gun rights laws, voter fraud laws, etc., etc.). As to “bias” I have several times expressed my opposition to both, DADT & DOMA (except the manifest part of DOMA which supports state autonomy).
#16 Mrs. Saunders I will assume you agree we don’t often agree.
So, when we do agree…..which of us has changed our “bias”? (Or do we share an opinion?).
From your # 16; “The RTEB “bias” is well known, well documented and has plenty of precedent. There is no argument to be had here.”
Thank you for your concurrence. This is all I said coming in.
18 – Sandi, the stupid law was, while stupid, still the law of the land: homosexuals could not serve in the armed forces. It is the role of the Executive Branch to enforce the law of the land, agree or disagree, good law or bad. Even as they work to overturn bad law, they have to enforce it. All of them, not just the ones they agree with. Clinton’s advice to gay soldiers – don’t ask, don’t tell – flew directly in the face of that bad law.
Bringing this back around, we either support the role of the chief executive (state or federal) and we hold that all laws must be obeyed (your position), or we recognize that there are some laws that are unconstitutional, unenforceable or otherwise just plain bad that we – the citizenry – have the discretion to disregard it, to ignore it, to nullify it (as long as we don’t break other ‘good” laws in the process) (my position).
If you truly do not “believe, or think “people should be able to disregard, or ignore, or not enforce, state laws” whether I like them or not”, then you have to support Cuccinelli’s position on supporting a law (by not protecting law breakers) you find despicable, or you have defined hypocrisy.
If you believe in such latitude as I described above, then you also have to accept that there may be some incidents of nullification (or like measures) that you can only support by holding your nose (this is where I find myself0; or again, you risk hypocrisy.
And you make fun of “the definition of is”?
I have made myself clear, you can twist my words and tell me what I mean and what I must mean and what I must think and what I must accept, as you like. I am changing nothing.