Cuccinelli says people should go to jail to protest the health care act that pays for birth control

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by spencgr

I would be troubled if he said they should break the law, but not be punished. He distictly said that they should go to jail. As a law enforecement officer, he indicated that he would enfore the punishment of those who break the law.

IOW he was advocated civil disobedience, rather than outright defiance of the law, or open rebellion against the state. Good.

but I still fail to see where during the civil rights era any state attorney general advocated for civil disobedience.

My sense is that its not proper for state attorneys general to advocate for disobedience of the law, period. Even if that disobedience accepts punishment, as classical civil disobedience does. But I may be naive in that respect.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by spencgr

I would be troubled if he said they should break the law, but not be punished.

had he done that, it would be up to the state legislature to consider immediate impeachment.

That is not what is at issue here (at least to me) It is whether he is conducting himself as AG in ways that are most appropriate to an AG (not to a clergyman, poet, or civil rights leader) and whether he shows himself fit for the highest office in the Commonwealth.

[CAVA1990]

I think people often mistakenly equate the role of the VA state Attorney General with the U.S. Attorney General. They former is very weak in comparison, working in not much more than an advisory "General Counsel" capacity to the governor. As auch I'd probably cut him more latitude than I would the U.S. version or that in some other states where they're more of a prosecutor-in-chief.

[Yankeesfan]

Originally Posted by spencgr

Then laws never change. If everyone followed your lead then we'd still have segregated busses and schools.

Indeed.

[IndiaLimaDelta]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

One can sympathize with civil disobedience by private citizens, while being troubled by the implications of a key state official with responsibility for enforcement of the law, advocating for disobedience of the law.

"Key state officials" are entitled to free speech as well. So long as he said this as a private citizen rather than as an official chief law enforcer of the Commonwealth...

Originally Posted by spencgr

I would be troubled if he said they should break the law, but not be punished. He distictly said that they should go to jail. As a law enforecement officer, he indicated that he would enfore the punishment of those who break the law.

Exactly. It's the kind of thing those on the Left usually cheer as being principled when done on the other side of the political isle.

[Mr. Benz]

Woah...

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta

"Key state officials" are entitled to free speech as well. So long as he said this as a private citizen rather than as an official chief law enforcer of the Commonwealth...
Exactly. It's the kind of thing those on the Left usually cheer as being principled when done on the other side of the political isle.

I cannot speak for "the left" as I am centrist, but when is the last time a key state official (but thanks to Cava for clarifying about the AGs role) encouraged civil disobedience in this fashion?

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by IndiaLimaDelta

"Key state officials" are entitled to free speech as well.

Of course. he should not be censored by the state. There is nothing in the first amendment that says voters cannot take his words into account in determining whether or not to vote for him.

[IndiaLimaDelta]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

I cannot speak for "the left" as I am centrist, but when is the last time a key state official (but thanks to Cava for clarifying about the AGs role) encouraged civil disobedience in this fashion?

I don't know as I am unconcerned with such things. But I do know that the current president of the United States has declared unilaterally that his administration would not enforce the law on an entire class of people based on his whim and/or political advantages.

Based on your earlier assertion, this would be grounds for impeachment.

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

Of course. he should not be censored by the state. There is nothing in the first amendment that says voters cannot take his words into account in determining whether or not to vote for him.

Quite right. Private views are fair game for officials, especially elected ones, at the ballot box. Is someone arguing against this?

[CAVA1990]

I think politicians who say what they really believe should be encouraged. Their only punishment should be at the ballot box.