I don't know who started this trend of Attorneys General (state and federal) refusing to defend their own laws, but I'm not a fan. Right now Democrats seem to be doing it the most, but I doubt that they invented the practice.
It is the politicization of the enforcement of laws and justice, and that's extremely dangerous. It leads to unpredictability in which laws are going to be enforced and undermines the rule of law about as badly as anything can.
In court, an attorney general is supposed to advocate for the laws of his state (or federal laws, if we're talking about the USAG). The government is his client. If he so strongly disagrees with a law that he can't in good conscience defend it, then he should do what a lawyer is supposed to do when he can't in good conscience represent his client - drop the client. That means he should resign as attorney general.
I know what the opposition says. He's following the Constitution, which is a higher law. Respectfully, that's not his job to decide. If we were talking about a law that was in direct conflict with the Constitution (such as a ban on political speech or a law designating an official religion), then maybe. However, we're talking about laws (statewide bans on gay marriage) that are inciting hot button legal questions that are far from settled. He may not like the law at issue and may even believe it to be unconstitutional, but he can't just blow it off. If he does, he's in dereliction of his duties and should be removed from office.
Hell, what if a Republican EEOC Commissioner thought the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional and dismissed every EEOC case? Would Democrats be cool with that? I doubt it.
It is the politicization of the enforcement of laws and justice, and that's extremely dangerous. It leads to unpredictability in which laws are going to be enforced and undermines the rule of law about as badly as anything can.
In court, an attorney general is supposed to advocate for the laws of his state (or federal laws, if we're talking about the USAG). The government is his client. If he so strongly disagrees with a law that he can't in good conscience defend it, then he should do what a lawyer is supposed to do when he can't in good conscience represent his client - drop the client. That means he should resign as attorney general.
I know what the opposition says. He's following the Constitution, which is a higher law. Respectfully, that's not his job to decide. If we were talking about a law that was in direct conflict with the Constitution (such as a ban on political speech or a law designating an official religion), then maybe. However, we're talking about laws (statewide bans on gay marriage) that are inciting hot button legal questions that are far from settled. He may not like the law at issue and may even believe it to be unconstitutional, but he can't just blow it off. If he does, he's in dereliction of his duties and should be removed from office.
Hell, what if a Republican EEOC Commissioner thought the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional and dismissed every EEOC case? Would Democrats be cool with that? I doubt it.
