We’re all teabaggers now.
As you probably know, today the Washington state Supreme Court ruled to allow state Attorney General Rob McKenna to continue his humiliation of Washingtonians. The Court ruled that McKenna has the right to thwart the will of the legislature, the Governor, and the people, and participate in the Florida et al. lawsuit against the health care reform law.
Since McKenna is running for Governor in 2012, a natural question to ask is, “What will McKenna’s replacement do?”
The 2012 general election match-up for AG is likely to be between King County Council members Reagan Dunn (R) and Bob Ferguson (D). Where do the candidates stand?
Publicola’s Erica C. Barnett gives Ferguson’s unambiguous statement:
“I have been clear that on my first day in office, I will withdraw Washington State from that lawsuit. Instead, the Attorney General should focus on protecting Washington consumers, our environment and ensuring public safety.”
And Washington State Wire’s Erik Smith lays out Dunn’s position:
Dunn says he supports McKenna’s most controversial decision – to join the national lawsuit filed by Republican governors and attorneys general in 26 states against the Obama Administration’s health care reform initiative. And just in case that one hasn’t been resolved by 2014, Dunn says he’ll keep right on pressing the case.
So…there you have it: A sharp, unambiguous difference between Ferguson and Dunn for our next Attorney General.
When I first heard the name “Reagan Done” I thought it was some dude running on an anti Reagan platform.
But if you’ve got a stupid name and want to run for state wide office on a stealth strategy it only stands to reason you’d glob on to your predecessor’s least popular position and make it your own.
Reagan Done indeed.
Reagan Dunn hasn’t the slightest business being AG. McKenna doesn’t either. They are both, first and foremost, career politicians, not lawyers. They see the AG position as being a stepping stone to higher office. I could name hundreds of lawyers in this state who are better-equipped to be AG than either of them.
and your Queen Christine is/was different how?
I used to think you had to be smart to become a lawyer. Dunn proved me wrong.
@3 The AG job is a stepping stone for Democrats only. For GOPers it’s a dead-end job.
Maxie,
Gregoire was a lawyer for the state for many years before she ran for office. She actually had an idea about how the AG’s office should function. Was it a stepping stone? Sure, but she had experience valuable to the job.
So, get a good lefty elected AG and let the lefty, using this case as precedence (SP?), let the AG have fun and run riot. Once elected, the left can have all sorts of fun with this.
Oops, that’s some bad editing on m part, but you get the idea.
@6
so the fact that she is a lifelong govt employee qualifies her?
sorry, not buying that one…try again.
McKenna seems somewhat accomplished as an AG:
Im not saying Im going to vote for him because I dont know at this point, but trying to porrtay him as dunce and inexperienced seems like a fools errand if you ask me(read: partisan politics from HA as usual)
7
McKenna really fucked up his upwardly mobile political plans by joining that lawsuit. He did it to try to placate the craziest wingnuts in his party and avoid a primary challenge, but his decision kills, I firmly believe, any chance he has to beat Inslee. This is, after all, Washington, not Oklahoma. BTW, it’s “precedent,” not “precedence” that matters in the common law.
“precedent”
That’s what I was looking for. And now that we have this the next liberal AG can use it to his or her advantage.
McKenna doesn’t have a hope in hell of winning the election.
10
Robby, after losing the election, and being out of elective office for the first time in his adult life, may have to try to be a lawyer. Of course, one of the big firms will give him a job. He’ll be a lobbyist of some sort. Make lots of money. So, we won’t have to worry about Robby’s well-being. He’ll do just fine.
The Supreme Court’s decision is correct. The Attorney General is independent of the legislature and the governor. This is why the people vote for who the AG is.
@ 13
But not so independent that he is allowed to usurp the State Constitution and ignore instructions to his office from the Legislature or the Governor. In no way, shape or form, is an enforcement body of law, allowed to interpret the foundations of the law to suit a political purpose. The State Attorney General is the ultimate prosecutor of the law for the State, not the final word on how such laws are interpreted. That is the Supreme Courts responsibility. His job is to prosecute the laws.
If the prosecutors office was ordered to change how certain laws were enforced by an act of the Legislature and the Governor, the Attorney General has no right whatsoever to refuse those orders. Period.
He cannot make up his own law to suit whatever agenda he may have, he cannot refuse an order to enforce the law, nor can he persist in an enforcement action contrary to law. The AG’s office is not allowed to interpret its own responsibilities to the law. Such responsibilities are laid out in the State Constitution and by acts of legislation.
I know of at least one law on the Books, that allows a State level court to evict any individual from the State and confiscate their property if that individual has been convicted of engaging in acts that subverted the State Governments ability to enforce the law or function as an enforcement body. You endanger the State, or work against the States interest, you can lose everything including the right to live in the State, engage in commerce or own property within it.
To me, this would include preventing the State from enforcing and obeying its own Constitutional mandate.
The AG is NOT the final word on the law for several damn good reasons.
“I know of at least one law on the Books, that allows a State level court to evict any individual from the State and confiscate their property if that individual has been convicted of engaging in acts that subverted the State Government”
Sounds like a Republican enactment from the red-baiting era aimed at university professors who teach evolution and other things they don’t like.
@ 15
Actually, that law goes a lot farther back than that, to the mid 1890s. At the time, the newly created State of Washington was still trying to reign in the big independent ranching, mining and timber concerns that wanted to keep Washington and Oregon as a territory with no real central government or law enforcement structure. These companies openly fought the State government. Real shooting wars.
Bear in mind, an awful lot of those legends about the “Wild West” and the cattle and mining wars came right out of the Pacific Northwest Territories. For close to 40 years, there was no rule of law here. Much more recently than even Texas or California. There were still men walking around Seattle and Everett and Bellingham with six-shooters on their hips until the late 1930’s. Parts of the Eastern half of the State saw that until the early 60’s. Kux’s Tavern in Northport has pictures on the walls of guys with their revolvers on their hips from that period, in the saloon.
Wasn’t all that long ago. That law still has uses I think. Seems to me that A certain vapid little chubby anarchist we’ve all known and come to love in our own special way comes to mind.
@14 who ever said the AG had the final word on the law. Are you claiming Rob McKenna is going to decide the outcome of the health care lawsuit? Last I heard, he is just joining other Republican Attorneys General.
17
Are you that dim, or simply dissembling? Go back to wherever it is you wingnuts huddle together. Fondle together. Whatever it is you do together. Please do not appear here again.