Attorney General Eric Holder wants his counterparts in state capitals to treat the law with the same contempt his boss does in the White House:
Respect it when it’s convenient; ignore it when it’s not.
In a New York Times interview Monday, Holder said state attorneys general should refuse to defend state constitutions that ban same-sex marriage — the way the California’s Democrat Attorney General Kamala Harris decided she had no obligation to the voters who elected her to defend the Golden State’s Proposition 8 when it went to the Supreme Court last year.
Six attorneys general – all Democrats, of course – have announced they will not defend bans on same-sex marriage, arbitrarily substituting their own positions for the beliefs of the people they’re supposed to work for.
Republicans, including Wisconsin Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen, president of the National Association of Attorneys General, said Holder should keep his comments about state laws to himself.
“It really isn’t his job to give us advice on defending our constitutions any more than it’s our role to give him advice on how to do his job,” Van Hollen told The Times.
“We are the ultimate defenders of our state constitutions.”
That should make for an interesting conversation when Holder is scheduled to address the national group in Washington on Tuesday.
In The Times interview, Holder likened the same sex marriage issue to – of course – the civil rights battles of the 1950s and ’60s, and the libs love to bang that drum any time they can, but it’s a red herring and they know it.
President Obama himself came into office in 2008 opposing same sex marriage – and Holder was his attorney general from the start. It wasn’t until 2012 with a tough election looming that Obama decided to milk the issue for liberal votes and declared he was all for gays going to the altar – and even that took a push from Joe Biden, for God’s sake.
In the interview, Holder pretends – and The Times pretends to believe – that he wants state attorneys general to stand up for core principles, but what he’s really talking about is constitutional officers picking and choosing which laws to defend based on the political needs of the moment.
He’s talking about lawlessness.
UPDATE: The Twitter world has taken notice, starting with Washington Examiner columnist Byron York (via Twitchy.com).
The Holder NYT interview is truly disturbing. No limiting principle for law/constitution that AG can ignore. Just what he thinks is right.
— Byron York (@ByronYork) February 24, 2014
York’s readers agreed.
@ByronYork One senses, too, that if a state had a law enshrining gay marriage & a conserv AG refusing 2 enforce, Holder wd b 1st to denounce
— Tom Kattman (@TomKattman) February 24, 2014
Shorter Holder: state AGs should “…preserve, protect and defend the parts of the Constitution they agree with.” http://t.co/C2J6mOrQsL
— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) February 24, 2014
And here’s the biggest question of all, and one that libs and their media acolytes have forgetten — to the everlasting shame of the Obama Era.
@ByronYork Very disturbing. AG’s are sworn to uphold the law, including laws with which they disagree. Are we a nation of laws or men?
— M. G. Alexander (@edw8ri) February 24, 2014
Latest posts by Joe Saunders (see all)
- Pelosi goes off the deep end when asked if a baby is human; ‘might be the dumbest response in history’ - October 1, 2015
- GOP congressman, whose mom died of breast cancer, explodes: ‘I’m tired of getting lectures from Democrats!’ - October 1, 2015
- Undercover sting catches Hillary worker breaking law: Hispanic voter sign-up using ‘Trump’s ‘bi**hface’ - October 1, 2015