The attorney general is a constitutional officer who is elected in his own right. He is a political official. He is not subordinate to the legislature. So he isn’t merely the state’s counsel. He has independent authority to judge the constitutionality of an enacted law.
Seems to me that Bryan Ekers is expressing a rationally grounded point of view, while you keep going on about dogmatic principles that would seem to justify – by extrapolation of your logic – your citizen’s right to “fire” the President of the United States for exercising his constitutionally authorized executive discretion to postpone parts of the ACA. A bit simplistic, IMHO, and entirely ideological. The lunatic Cuccinelli lost. Deal with it.
If it’s his professional opinion that the law is undefensible, then wouldn’t it be a violation of professional ethics for him to do so anyway?
Maybe it’s like sports - he’s expected to try his best anyway.
Other way around. The S.Ct. found that the private groups defending the law lacked standing.
My thought exactly. Isn’t there a presumption that a law is constitutional until A COURT rules that it is not?
There is, but that mostly refers to who has the burden of proof once the dispute gets to court. The extent to which an executive authority can substitute his or her judgment for that of the legislature (or the law-making electorate) as to the constitutionality of a law is fuzzier.
The violation of ethics came when he sought a job where he knew there would be laws he wouldn’t like and wouldn’t like to defend or prosecute, and then accepted that role and refused to do his job. I’ve explained before this is something a person has to think about before they go into that field.
This would be an entirely different argument if a high court had ruled the law unconstitutional. It hasn’t. This pompous AG has decided to be judge, jury, and executioner in defiance of the will of the people.
Do you admit that you were wrong about him not enforcing laws?
What are you talking about? He’s not upholding nor defending the law that was legally put into place. If it’s found to be unconstitutional via the proper channels he’ll have a valid, ethical excuse for not defending it. Until then he’s simply forcing his will over that of the people collectively.
Of course he’s upholding the law. Are same sex couples getting married in VA?
He was talking about a hypothetical that might not even happen.
What is this “hypothetical” challenge you are talking about? The case is ongoing. The AG filed a brief yesterday changing sides and attacking the positions of the party he represents.
But it’s not a matter of “laws he wouldn’t like”. It’s a matter of his being instructed to find a manner of proving the constitutionality of a law, examining the issue, and concluding that there isn’t one.
If I were, say, a teacher, and I was instructed by my superiors to teach children how to prove that 2+2 = 643, and I responded that I couldn’t do that because it wasn’t possible, would I be guilty of dereliction?
Upon hearing this, I had just assumed that Herring had seen the fun and games going on in Utah and Oklahoma, had a look at the wording of Virginia’s anti-SSM laws in comparison and the arguments made in the other two states and decided they were similar enough that a constitutional challenge in Virginia was likely. But rather than expend his office’s resources on an extended legal fight, request for stays etc, he opted to “coast” on a non-defense position until such time as the Utah and Oklahoma cases get resolved, at which point either the VA law can go away or he can switch back on the enforcement.
Am I reading this wrong? I recognize that the exercise of his discretionary powers is going to be heavily informed by his personal views but I’d be surprised if the progression of the other cases had no bearing on his decision.
Well, if the people of Virginia feel the same way, let them impeach or recall him or whatever the relevant mechanism is to remove him from office, assuming one exists, or elect somebody else next time.
Meantime, he’s decided not to pretend that there’s no such thing as a gay Virginian.
Just a practical matter, you understand that by this stance there have been very few"ethical" AGs elected anywhere in the country, right? This is a pretty common decision for an AG although rarely this high-profile.
What other examples are you thinking of?
This is unlikely, since Utah and Oklahoma are in different federal circuits than Virginia is.
You’re right, a cop doesn’t get to decide constitutionality issues. But an AG has that as part of his job.
Does anyone really think *any *state anti-SSM laws are consistent with the SC DOMA ruling? That a decision not to bother defending them is *not *a prudent decision not to waste taxpayer money and time?
The individual player is expected to try his best at each moment. The AG’s position is more like that of a coach who must juggle the finite resources of player endurance, resistance to injury, etc in order to determine when to pull back a bit now so that a full push will be possible under circumstances more conducive to success.