Abandon ship!!! The SS Palin is sinking!

[Sean]

Janie, maybe you can explain something I haven't been able to understand yet in the reports I've seen. How can the report find that Palin has "violated state ethics laws", but also apparently find that she's "broken no laws"?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Sean

Janie, maybe you can explain something I haven't been able to understand yet in the reports I've seen. How can the report find that Palin has "violated state ethics laws", but also apparently find that she's "broken no laws"?

I think I can, and I've said this many time before during the past 8 years.

Why does a dog lick...?

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by Sean

Janie, maybe you can explain something I haven't been able to understand yet in the reports I've seen. How can the report find that Palin has "violated state ethics laws", but also apparently find that she's "broken no laws"?

From what I can gather, the state ethics laws are, rather, codes of practice for state employees rather than "law" as such - and when you think about it, in many respects this is what they have to be, because you could feasibly be violating an ethics law by being the boss of a company who also does business with the state, yet you couldn't be cited or arrested for something like that.

I liken it to the Bar Code of Conduct - there are things I can do which would result in me being fined, suspended or even disbarred, but for which I would not committing a criminal act or tort of any kind. I think it calling it a "law" (and the sections of it "statutes") is a bit of a misnomer really.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

From what I can gather, the state ethics laws are, rather, codes of practice for state employees rather than "law" as such - and when you think about it, in many respects this is what they have to be, because you could feasibly be violating an ethics law by being the boss of a company who also does business with the state, yet you couldn't be cited or arrested for something like that.

I liken it to the Bar Code of Conduct - there are things I can do which would result in me being fined, suspended or even disbarred, but for which I would not committing a criminal act or tort of any kind. I think it calling it a "law" (and the sections of it "statutes") is a bit of a misnomer really.

That makes much more sense than what I was hearing on the news, which was just plain old contradiction.

Thanks Janie!

[Sean]

Double post. Sorry, but this deserved it's very own reply.

. You can see most people giving her thumbs down gestures in the background, too. Pretty funny that it's all set to ridiculously triumphant music. Looks like an instant classic to me.

[Troy McClure]

Compared to other Philly fan reactions, that one was mild. They've booed Santa Claus, thrown batteries at opposing players, and cheered when Dallas Cowboys' Michael Irvin nearly broke his neck. When she kissed the NY Rangers player on the cheek (he's from Alaska) I'm surprised nothing worse happened. Philly fans are maniacally faithful for their teams.

Also, check out Fox News video account of the reaction:


Jason

For what it's worth Sen. McCain goes to Phoenix Suns games occasionally and sits courtside. The last time he was there in April, when he was introduced during a timeout, the crowd was about 60% for 40% against. So don't give up on Arizona just yet.

[IsiliRunite]

We all know liberals are inherently smarter than conservatives amirite?!

[froopy seal]

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

From what I can gather, the state ethics laws are, rather, codes of practice for state employees rather than "law" as such - and when you think about it, in many respects this is what they have to be, because you could feasibly be violating an ethics law by being the boss of a company who also does business with the state, yet you couldn't be cited or arrested for something like that.

I liken it to the Bar Code of Conduct - there are things I can do which would result in me being fined, suspended or even disbarred, but for which I would not committing a criminal act or tort of any kind. I think it calling it a "law" (and the sections of it "statutes") is a bit of a misnomer really.

Don't mean to be smartassing, just a question of understanding:

Are those Alaskan "state ethics laws" laws in the "material" sense of this notion (i. e., any abstract and general provision, such as decrees, directives, ordinances etc.), as opposed to the "formal" notion (i. e., provisions adopted by a parliament, such as criminal laws, data protection acts etc.)? Is there any such differentiation between "formal" and "material" law in the case law system?

[froopy seal]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

We all know liberals are inherently smarter than conservatives amirite?!

Yeah, that's a no-brainer.
SCNR

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by froopy seal

Don't mean to be smartassing, just a question of understanding:

Are those Alaskan "state ethics laws" laws in the "material" sense of this notion (i. e., any abstract and general provision, such as decrees, directives, ordinances etc.), as opposed to the "formal" notion (i. e., provisions adopted by a parliament, such as criminal laws, data protection acts etc.)? Is there any such differentiation between "formal" and "material" law in the case law system?

I have no idea, frankly, because in the UK we don't have ethics "laws", just codes of conduct. We need an American lawyer on this one, I think