Again, we’re going around in circles. You keep talking about the legislature’s job to “correct” the laws that are on the books...to close “loopholes” etc. You keep discussing this as if there were some short-coming in the law, stating “laws aren’t perfect” as if what Tiller was doing was technically legal. How many times do we have to explain to you, that wasn’t the problem? The pro-life legislators did their job properly. The problem is in the refusal of the AG to ENFORCE the law for political reasons. You seem to be conflating Tiller getting off on minor charges about a doctor’s second opinion — which had NOTHING to do with his major crime and wouldn’t have stopped him at all even if he had been convicted — and the REFUSAL of the AG to bring charges for the main crime. Whether or not the AG follows the law is not in the hands of the pro-lifers. And,yes, you can say Tiller’s killer should have tried to have the AG impeached. I don’t presume to know what was in the killer’s mind, but I’m guessing he concluded the pro-lifers did everything by the book and babies were still being murdered and decided not to allow more babies to be murdered while this was being drawn out.
“How many times do we have to explain to you, that wasn’t the problem?”
Who is the we? To date, you’re the only person I’ve had this discussion with on here. Pardon my confusion.
“You seem to be conflating Tiller getting off on minor charges about a doctor’s second opinion....”
I am, in fact, attempting to keep those issues separate while still addressing both. Perhaps this is part of the confusion? I will try to separate them more clearly in the future.
You are correct - The secondary issue you mention would be addressed by closing a legal loophole - the primary issue would not.
I believe, however, that in BOTH cases the BEST legal remedies are elections. Send those people down to a HARD defeat. Not only will you get rid of the offenders but you will change the sorts of candidates that run for many years to come...
Believe it or not I’m agreeing with almost everything you are saying. The only contention I’ve had with anything you’ve said is:
1) You seem to suggest that ALL legal remedies have been EXHAUSTED when I believe they clearly have not &
2) This thing about “extraordinary measures”
The first one is clearly resolved. I can point to elections which can be held. I can point to possible impeachments. I can point to constitutional amendments which could be passed. All of these are legal remedies which haven’t reached their limit. Clearly legal means have not been exhausted and the rule of law can continue to address these matters.
The second issue is “extraordinary measures”. I understand you feel that taking some of these steps are extraordinary but you’ve never made clear what difference that makes. So it’s extraordinary! Does that change the legal options in any way?