When Kathleen Kane was elected Attorney General here in Pennsylvania, I cheered — we haven’t had a Democratic AG in, well, forever it seems. Surely things would change.
I’m happy to report that they have.
The ACLU recently sued Pennsylvania (and some other states) over the gay marriage ban. Our Attorney General has announced that she will not defend a law she believes is unconstitutional. “If there is a law that I feel that does not conform with the Pennsylvania state constitution and the U.S. Constitution, then I ethically cannot do that as a lawyer,” she said.
It’s not like the law won’t be defended; our conservative governor vows to fight this and he has a legal staff to do so. He’s also, based on current polls, the most unpopular governor in the country, and I can only imagine this will hurt him even more in a state that has a majority of the population supporting gay marriage.
Chances are, nothing will happen here in Pennsylvania since we have a Republican-dominated Supreme Court. (One Republican Justice was recently removed — that happens when you get convicted of a felony — but she was replaced by someone almost as bad). So chances are this will move through the courts and get combined with the cases from the other states to later get before the US Supreme Court.
Still, it’s a step in the right direction, and it’s nice to know we have an Attorney General who has ethics.
ventrellaquest.com 
I disagree. She is circumventing the very system of law that she is supposed to be protecting. The correct way to determine whether something is constitutional or not is to bring it into a court of law, where attorneys on both sides of the matter diligently argue their case, so that a judge may knowledgeably rule on the matter. Just because SHE doesn’t believe the law is constitutional doesn’t mean she should violate her DUTY to defend the laws of Pennsylvania. If she doesn’t agree with the laws of the state, she should either run for a legislative position where she can change them or petition her legislature.
By choosing not to defend the laws of the state (as she swore to do when she was elected into this position), she is essentially taking illegal executive action. I didn’t like this kind of behavior when Bush did it, I didn’t like it when Obama did it, and I don’t like it when this AG is doing it. As you pointed out, yes, there is a back up in place, but what if there wasn’t? Then Kathleen Kane would essentially be acting like a dictator, striking laws from law books without the authority to do so. Her actions are at least as corrupt and politically motivated as anything the PA governor and legislature has done in recent months.
LikeLike
How can you argue something you don’t agree with? You want her to put in a half-assed defense?
The suit personally names her (as AG) and she is deciding not to defend against it. That’s perfectly acceptable.
It’s not like the case will die. The case will still go forward, and the Court will hear one side and make its decision.
Attorney Generals are elected because they have discretion which cases to take and which ones not to take.
LikeLike
No, I want her to put up a vigorous defense. I want her to try her best. And, I want her to lose. If she clearly puts up a good defense, hell, a great defense, and still loses, then the matter becomes much more settled.
A good lawyer is supposed to be able to fight for a case they don’t agree with. I want my attorney general to be a good lawyer and I want her to DEFEND the laws of my state, even the ones I don’t agree with.
LikeLike
Even I, as a defense attorney, can refuse to take a case I don’t believe in. Why should the Attorney General of the state be forced to waste time, money, and resources on a law she doesn’t believe in?
LikeLike
Well I don’t think anything good is to be gained from arguing simply for the sake of arguing, particularly when it’s in court.
Face it. Prosecutors do have the *right* to decide whether to try a case, as does /ANY LAWYER/ when you come right down to it.
That’s what helps make a better overall presentation in the court in the first place. Only the ones who self select and truly believe in their point of view will help make it best & most well thought out means of debating & presenting their side of how the case should be seen and eventually decided.
Half hearted attempts or attempts that are done under force or duress will likely simply leave many avenues unexplored and untried.
Those are my thoughts on the idea.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: She’s a witch! Impeach her! |