Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Who watches the watchmen.
I read the comic YEARS before the movie came out!
Also, the AG may choose not to defend it if the AG feels that there is not a winnable case. Much like the AG may choose not to prosecute if there is not a winnable case.
Which should never apply to defending the constitutionality of the law though. How the **** can the AG decide if the case is unwinnable? If it was that clear, it wouldn't be going to the Supreme Court in the first place.
And in this case, it's quite clear that the AGs in question aren't doing this based on that criteria anyway, so my original point stands. They shouldn't be deciding this based on whether they personally like the law in question (or because opposing it fits into their political agenda), because it's not their job to make that determination. Just as an attorney is required to do his best job defending his client regardless of whether he likes him or not (and the state is required to provide one if the person cannot obtain one themselves), the same should apply to AGs defending the laws themselves.
Imagine a situation where you were charged with a crime, and the court ruled that you could not obtain private representation yourself but had to rely on the state to provide it, and the state refused to do so? You'd call that situation "BS", right? Set aside whether we like the person/law/whatever, everyone (and every law, since those represent the will of the people) deserves to be defended in court. Exploiting a loophole to get around that basic presumption of our legal system should be troubling to everyone, regardless of how they feel about the specific case in question. Edited, Jul 11th 2013 7:47pm by gbaji