Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is not an option, her only option is to "punt" under certain circumstances and this isn't one of them. That's what she did though hence the reason the governor needed to appoint special counsel.
Last edited by thecoalman; 05-22-2014 at 11:59 AM..
That is not an option, her only option is to "punt" under certain circumstances and this isn't one of them. That's what she did though hence the reason the governor needed to appoint special counsel.
Then how does the AG defend an indefensible law? Even the special counsel couldn't come-up with a defense beyond, "just because." SCOTUS striking down the federal DOMA as being unconstitutional was all the cover the Kabe needed to not defend the law as they were virtually identical.
It's mandated by statute that she defend the laws of Pennsylvania,
What statute would that be?
Quote:
she can't pick and choose which ones they are and neither can the Governor.
Well until you produce the statute that you cite, the AG has a dual responsibility, one to the state and the other to the Constitution. The is a great deal of precedent for attorney generals on the federal level of refusing to represent in court laws that they deemed unconstitutional, it is part of their sworn duty as defenders of the Constitution.
Quote:
To change the law it either has to go through the normal legislative process or the courts. Period.
If only it were that simple, but it isn't.
Quote:
There is small out in that statute that allows the AG in PA to decline for reasons of efficiency, conflict etc. but her refusal was entirely based on her politics. Because of her refusal the governor was obligated to appoint special counsel.
Again, I would like to see the statute and the supporting Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to
uphold and defend the constitutionality of all statutes so
as to prevent their suspension or abrogation in the absence
of a controlling decision by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
There is the only out but it doesn't apply:
Quote:
The Attorney General may, upon determining that it is more
efficient or otherwise is in the best interest of the
Commonwealth, authorize the General Counsel or the counsel for
an independent agency to initiate, conduct or defend any
particular litigation or category of litigation in his stead.
Honestly Ovcatto, you have your head on straight. Do you really thing it's good idea to have an AG deciding what laws to defend when challenged? Having a single person decide this would just be a bad idea because it could effectively strip the legislative branch of their powers.
If the shoe was on the other foot and a Republican AG and Republican governor decided to not defend the law as written?
Of course it's an option not to defend the law. There are laws on the books in states that require all sorts of things...doesn't mean the AG has to enforce them. Like say, no driving on Sundays or something else left over from the 19th century. There is every reason not to pursue anti-single-sex-marriage laws. 1. No judge is going to uphold it as it is unconstitutional and so every ruling has found. 2. The state has no standing as SSM doesn't harm anyone as every ruling has found. 3. Why waste state time and money on a ruling that will very shortly be decided by the Supremes?
If the shoe was on the other foot and a GOP AG and Gov decided not to defend it...which I think has already happened at least once?...the left wing would cheer because it means our long-told tale that once upon a time there was a reasonable Republican will have come true.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to
uphold and defend the constitutionality of all statutes so
as to prevent their suspension or abrogation in the absence
of a controlling decision by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
Quote:
If the shoe was on the other foot and a GOP AG and Gov decided not to defend it...
When I said the if the show was on the other foot I was not talking about this particular law.
That's the way these statutes are written, with wiggle room. It can be argued that if the law is unconstitutional (which this one is), then there is nothing to defend.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.