The latest stunt that AG Cuccinelli has pulled is filing an amicus brief on on behalf of Arizona, along with 8 other states. Bacon’s Rebellion Blogspot has an interesting take on the antics of the AG and just how much he is costing the commonwealth:
Sooner or later, someone is going to have to pay for the dogma-saturated legal forays of Kenneth Cuccinelli, Virginia’s firebrand Attorney General.
It’s a shame because hardly any of Cuccinelli’s high-profile legal actions seem to be worthy cases that protect citizens of the Old Dominion. Instead, his actions are aimed at firing up the hard-right fringes of the Republican Party and maybe dragging some in the center along as congressional elections approach this fall and General Assembly races follow next year.
Meanwhile, “The Cooch’s” legal initiatives are getting some substantial push-back and they are far from litigation slam-dunks.
The Feds have come back hard against Cuccinelli’s politically-motivated lawsuit against the health care reform act just passed that ends such one-sided and harmful practices as denying people health insurance because of a “pre-existing” condition as defined by private sector lawyers and insurance bureaucrats. The next shoe to drop comes in federal court in Richmond in August.
Bacon’s Rebellion led me to pose a few questions to an attorney friend of mine. I asked by whose authority does Cuccinelli act? Is he accountable to anybody? Does the governor have to approve his actions (The gov. seems be turning a blind eye to all of his lawsuits and briefs.)? How about the General Assembly? Are there any rules for being an Attorney General or can they just do to suit themselves?
My friend provided the following regarding the duties of the Attorney General:
The duties and powers include:
- Provide legal advice and representation to the Governor and executive agencies, state boards and commissions, and institutions of higher education. The advice commonly includes help with personnel issues, contracts, purchasing, regulatory and real estate matters and the review of proposed legislation. The Office also represents those agencies in court.
- Provide written legal advice in the form of official opinions to members of the General Assembly and government officials.
- Defend criminal convictions on appeal, and defend the state when prisoners sue concerning their incarceration.
- Defend the constitutionality of state laws when they are challenged in court.
- Enforce state laws that protect businesses and consumers when there are violations. Individual consumer complaints are usually handled by another agency.
- Represent consumers in utility matters before the State Corporation Commission.
- Collect debts owed to state agencies, hospitals and universities.
- Conduct or assist criminal investigations and prosecutions in certain limited cases (for example Medicaid fraud, money laundering, theft of state property, environmental crimes, and computer crimes).
- Represent the Department of Social Services in its efforts to collect child support on behalf of children and families.
- Supervise the appointment and payment of private attorneys hired by other state agencies for various matters.
- Assist victims of crime who are following criminal cases at the appellate level.
- Provide information to the public on Identity Theft prevention and remediation.
- Administer grants to help reduce crimes involving gangs, drugs and sex predators.
- Administer the Sexually Violent Predator Civil Commitment Program to protect children from the most dangerous predators.
I don’t see a darn thing on there about advancing a far right, fringe lunatic agenda under the auspices of the State of Virginia. While his base is cheering him on, Cuccinelli had better enjoy his short-lived time in the cat bird’s seat. Most Virginians consider this kind of showboating to be expensive, grand-standing and without merit.
You have to admit that the “far right, fringe lunatic” group seems pretty large — PEW puts it at about 59-60% nationally in favor of the Arizona law and 32% against, with some provisions of that law scoring in the 70th percentile. Even the California Field Poll says that their state is going 49-45 in favor of Arizona with 6 no opinion, iincluding Whites at 58% in favor and Blacks at 53% in favor while Hispanics oppose at 71%. That’s a pretty substantial fringe.
At the risk of firing up tempers even more, CBS News Poll says 57% believe the Arizona law is just about right, 17 % say it does not go far enough. Only 23% say it goes too far. 3% no opinion. Sorry, Moon, but I would have to opine that these numbers probably do not leave the AG sweating about his actions.
I was not referring to those who favor the AZ law. I was referring to Cucinnelli’s followers, regardless of what he does.
Cuccinelli appears to be overstepping his boundaries with his continuous briefs, filings and law suits. I don’t see any of that as a duty of the AG. The AZ amicus is just the tip of the iceberg.
The people who favor the AZ law obviously don’t see the pitfalls. There are other ways to address their goals and concerns. People are fearful of the border violence and the Mexican drug cartels. I don’t blame them. I think we all are. However, I don’t see where sb 1070 is going to take care of that situation. No one has yet explained it to me.
A lot of people once favored segregationg and slavery so Wolverine’s numbers really don’t mean anything.
I wish Cuckoonelli would go after drug dealers and murderers in Virginia instead of worrying about what Arizona does.
If SB 1070 forces President Obama to get off his duff and start taking seriously and honestly the security of that border, then I suspect that things like the Arizona law and the Stewart proposals in PWC may just fade away eventually into history. The most recent WaPo-ABC News poll shows that 75% of Americans believe the USG is not doing enough to secure the border. 83% support the use of the National Guard on the border. Those are whopping poll numbers by any standard. That same poll found that 58% support the Arizona law, including 40% of Democrats, 61% of Independents, and 79% of Republicans.
But I also found a bit of an interesting twist in another part of that same poll: a majority may now believe that it would be all right to legitimize those illegal immigrants already here with a certain amount of penalties to be assessed, including a 49-50 split among Republicans questioned. Now, if the President would start to do some honest and intelligent calculations, he just might find that action on one front might well bring some favorable action on another. But, alas, he just sits there and allows Eric Holder to file a lawsuit that even many Democrats do not support. The man has it in his own hands to lead the charge effectively in many fronts and satisfy a whole lot of citizens. But he just does not budge.
Sorry, Starryflights, those aren’t my numbers. They belong to WaPo, New York Times, ABC News, CBS News, Mason-Dixon, FOX News, PEW, and a lot of other polling entities. Amazing how all those numbers seem to arrive at just about the same exact place. Also rather amazing that the Democrats in Nevada are split 44-44 on the Arizona law, and 65% of those Dems think the USG lawsuit against Arizona is a mistake. Now, I’ve always had an attitude about polls which is sort of take ’em or leave ’em. But, when they all start saying the same thing and come from polling entities across the ideological spectrum, I always take a second look. The President should as well.
The AG is doing EXACTLY what we want him to do. This is why we voted for him. The lunatic left has many more painful lessons coming. KC is most certainly NOT going rogue, and NOT over-stepping his boundaries. The whining of the left is SWEET music to my ears!
Where on that list has be been authorized to sue the USA?
Did you bother to read the list?
It seems to me like all this rule of law crap is just that…crap. You really want a little fifedom where your rules are applied and screw everyone elses, regardless of what the law says.
Virginia will send the AG packing at the end of his term. I have been around this state many years. That’s just what will happen.
President George Bush tried that s few years ago and his own party nixed him.
Given that the Governor of Virginia has expressed reservations about the Arizona law (however muted), that there is no Virginia law at issue, and that there are rock solid Constitutional principles that support the US Government’s position on this, can I safely assume that this is personal politics for Mr. Cuccinelli? I always thought that, in Virginia, the AG’s job was to provide internal legal advice to the state government and to defend Virginia statutes in court.
There was overwhelming support for segregation. My point being that just because the majority of people in a general poll express a particular opinion, it doesn’t make it right.
Secondly, the only county in the Commonwealth where an Arizona type law was introduced was in Prince William County and our Republican led BOS voted in opposition to it. Someone correct me if I am wrong?
The left’s screeeeching continues, while the the State of Virginia pushes back on the left’s expansion of unconstitutional federal power and and interpretation that reserves power to the federal government not innumerated in the Constitution. This is not – not – a side show to the left’s concentration of centralized government. Go Cooch!
The AG will be voted out of office. He unwisely played too many cards right off the bat and Virginians now know his cards and his extremist agenda. He is on an ideological collision course. It cannot be sustained.
Keep on thinking you are in the right. It is a false sense of security. Let’s have this same conversation in 2013…after election day. Cuccinelli will continue to keep shooting himself in the foot, giving the mainstream increased political ammo.
NoVa Scout makes a good point. Virginia’s Governor has not supported any sort of AZ-type law for Virginia. Cuckoonelli’s actions won’t make a damn bit of difference far as Virginia is concerned.
@Wolverine
We’ll see what they say
1. if they get stopped, don’t have their papers and get the run-around;
2. once the racial profiling lawsuits start rolling in;
3. once the costs of the law and enforcing it are published;
3. once the riots break out.
These polls are like popularity contests. Just because something is popular doesn’t make it good, smart or right.
First of all, what I wonder about polls, are WHO the people are being polled. Immigration law is extremely complicated. Rez and I just went round and round about the term “criminal” and how it applies to people who are out of status. If the term “civil” penalty were used in the “narrative” as opposed to criminal, I wonder how different people would feel.
Moon,
AWESOME thread, thanks for all your hard work on this.
Like I said about the AG, clearly he must be ignorant of the facts surrounding PWC and our probable ultimately being rescinded UNANIMOUSLY due to fear of law suits.
Thanks, Elena. Pinko makes an excellent point about the popularity contest mentality on all this. Our laws shouldn’t be determined like American Idol is decided.
I continue to be concerned over who the AG answers to. It seems like this is a very powerful office with no oversight.
Anyone who feels it is their job to clothe the Goddess Virtue has a mighty strong opinion of themselves and their own importance.
Suggest reading Ross Douthat’s “The Roots of White Anxiety” in
today’s NYT op/ed. It helps to explain the rise of Cooch, FOX, BVBL,
the Tea Party etc. A large segment of America has legitimate
gripes that are too often simply dismissed as “racist”. Both sides
of our national debates can yell loudly, but have major
hearing problems.
As the old RR crossing sign advises, everyone needs to – Stop, Look, Listen.
@Big Dog
I don’t think we can dismiss everyone who disagrees with us as racist. However, if we don’t acknowledge racism is alive and well, we doom ourselves to return to a history we should not want to repeat.
:yawn: Is it the position of those on the thread against our AG that Virginia and the other 49 states should not file amicus curiae even when the resulting ruling may have an effect on the states?
Just doesn’t make sense if you ask me. Sounds like you’d want – on the larger issues – an understanding of what the impact would be at a state level.
Have sent the following e-mail to Senator Charles Colgan since I cannot find that Virginia has an Inspector General or anyone else who has review authority over what the executive branch does:
“Dear Senator Colgan:
I am writing to you since I am unable to determine if the Commonwealth has an Inspector General who has authority to revied the actions of the executive branch. If there is such an office, would you please have someone let me know how to contact that office? Otherwise I must presume this is the duty of the legislature an the citizens of the Commonwealth.
Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli recently joined nine other states in filing an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the state of Arizona. From all appearances, Mr. Cuccinelli supposedly did this on behalf of the citizens of the Commonwealth in his role as the Commonwealth’s Attorney General. In reviewing the duties of his office set forth on the Attorney General’s office website, I can find nothing that gives him this authority.
Would you or someone on your staff please help me to understand how he can take this action? If this has not been done in keeping with the duties of his office, then is it possible for the legislature or the governor to direct that he withdraw the Commonwealth’s endorsement of the amicus curiae brief?”
If Cuccinelli wants to join in the amicus brief as a private citizen–no problemo. But what gives him the authority to do otherwise? Here are the duties listed for his office taken from that office’s website: http://www.oag.state.va.us/OUR_OFFICE/Role.html
The duties and powers include:
Provide legal advice and representation to the Governor and executive agencies, state boards and commissions, and institutions of higher education. The advice commonly includes help with personnel issues, contracts, purchasing, regulatory and real estate matters and the review of proposed legislation. The Office also represents those agencies in court.
Provide written legal advice in the form of official opinions to members of the General Assembly and government officials.
Defend criminal convictions on appeal, and defend the state when prisoners sue concerning their incarceration.
Defend the constitutionality of state laws when they are challenged in court.
Enforce state laws that protect businesses and consumers when there are violations. Individual consumer complaints are usually handled by another agency.
Represent consumers in utility matters before the State Corporation Commission.
Collect debts owed to state agencies, hospitals and universities.
Conduct or assist criminal investigations and prosecutions in certain limited cases (for example Medicaid fraud, money laundering, theft of state property, environmental crimes, and computer crimes).
Represent the Department of Social Services in its efforts to collect child support on behalf of children and families.
Supervise the appointment and payment of private attorneys hired by other state agencies for various matters.
Assist victims of crime who are following criminal cases at the appellate level.
Provide information to the public on Identity Theft prevention and remediation.
Administer grants to help reduce crimes involving gangs, drugs and sex predators.
Administer the Sexually Violent Predator Civil Commitment Program to protect children from the most dangerous predators.
Well, it looks like the Obamacare lawsuit isn’t needed after all. It looks like the most ethical administration in history is now calling the mandate a ‘tax’ (even though Obama said it most certainly was NOT a tax) to get around the pesky constitutionality of it. How clever… and people wonder why I use “You Lie!”. 🙂
From the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=1
Yes, by all means George, lets have the Legislative branch or the Executive Branch tell the Attorney General what cases he can and cannot engage in – or, as an independently elected official, can and cannot represent the State in. Oh, wait, the US Attorney General – who is appointed, can make those decisions – without advising the White House based on race.
PWC, Mr. Harris will get back a standard form letter from Mr. Colgan saying thanks for bringing this up to my attention but the attorney general is directly elected by the voters and unless he does something illegal or anything else we can impeach him on…. sorry.
Isn’t the AG office part of the Executive Branch?
TP, do you want an AG who answers to no one? What if Eric Holder became our next AG. I doubt if you would want him playing loose cannon here in VA.
If the US Attorney general doesn’t do to suit the Prez he can fire him.
I don’t think the Governor can fire the AG. AG is an elected position. US Attorney General is an appointed position, appointed by the President with advice and consent of Senate. US AG serves at pleasure of President.
If Governor could fire the VA AG, then there would not have been McDonnell at the same time as Kaine. it is part of the checks and balances.
Agree with Rez.
The governor does have the ability to appoint a special counsel if needed under 2.2-510.
But, to MH’s question – the AG answers to the people as he’s directly elected. It’s just like if we elected a Sheriff that decided not to arrest people. We’d kick him out and put in a new Sheriff.
The US AG works at the ‘pleasure’ of the President. The VA AG is an elected representative of the people of the Commonwealth.
Oh I wasn’t implying the VA gov could fire the AG. I am just questioning who the AG answers to. Surely the VA constitution outlines what that person can and cannot do. The brief description below the fold sure doesn’t allow for advancement of political agenda.
To all, I am quite aware that the Virginia AG is elected. I only threw out that the pres. and AG (fed) as a contrast. Honest, I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck.
It would probably need some recall or impeachment. I don’t know what the constitutional removal mechanisms are around.
Same as the feds for the most part. House drafts articles of impeachment and the Senate decides on 2/3’s majority.
Article IV, Section 17, Virginia Constitution
The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, judges, members of the State Corporation Commission, and all officers appointed by the Governor or elected by the General Assembly, offending against the Commonwealth by malfeasance in office, corruption, neglect of duty, or other high crime or misdemeanor may be impeached by the House of Delegates and prosecuted before the Senate, which shall have the sole power to try impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, the senators shall be on oath or affirmation, and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the senators present. Judgment in case of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the Commonwealth; but the person convicted shall nevertheless be subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law. The Senate may sit during the recess of the General Assembly for the trial of impeachments.
Reining in a judge in Virginia is almost impossible. The malfeasance has to be very extreme. Bad judicial decisions do not count.
So what we are saying is, the Attorney General can do just about anything he/she wants to do, regardless of what Constitution of Virginia says. There apparently are no strict guidelines.
Since Pres. Obama has been in office, I have heard a great deal out of people about adherence to the Constitution. It’s a shame that the same standard isn’t applied at the state level. That is very telling to me.
What specifically has the AG done that’s against the Constitution of Virginia? If you’re accusing him of violating it; what Article and Section?
…tho I do enjoy that in the next line you say there “are no strict guidelines”. That was amusing. 🙂
A State-wide politician with a perspective – wow, now that is news. Moon, are you suggesting the people in VA did not know who and what they were voting for? Go Couch!
I said that the AG has done things that are not described within his duties. Stop word twisting. @ marin Want to show me where I said he violated the constitution? he might have but I don’t think I said he had.
I am suggesting that many people were asleep at the switch and that there was low voter turn out in the election. Kook was not well known statewide. He was a Nova guy. He kept his extremism fairly under wraps during the election cycle.
Oh well, he is good for entertainment. Every state needs a kook every so often just to capture our attention. However, Virginians have awakened. It will be a lot harder for an extremist to win office again.
Next question.
I’m with MH. Show me in the Commonwealth constitution the AG is authorized to join this amicus brief. If his duties are correctly stated on the website, he is outside the bounds of his duties.
What is even more disconcerting is that there is no independent office that has oversight of the executive branch. Who looks into conflicts of interest for example?
I wrote to Senator Colgan since there doesn’t seem to be anyone else to write to–except perhaps Senator Saslaw, the Majority Leader.
And what part of the Commonwealth’s interest is the AG protecting by joining in the amicus brief? The health care law suit? I don’t think so and, as of yet, we don’t have some kind of stupid anti-immigration law in the Commonwealth except here in PWC–is that what he is protecting?
George, a concept you may not understand is that if a law doesn’t exist to limit you it’s assumed to be legal. So, without a law telling the AG he *can’t* file an amicus the assumption is that he can if he wants to.
The website is not an all inclusive list – just an example so that a high school civics teacher can point to something and say — this is what our AG does!
I’m interested to see what Senator Colgan writes back to you. Would you be willing to share — one way or the other?
If those polls I cited were the exact opposite of the current outcomes, I think a lot of people on this blog would be extolling them to the Heavens. I can hear it now: “You see? Told you so! The American people do NOT support the Arizona law! The American people are smart! They are right on the mark in that! The Virginia AG should see that and conduct himself accordingly!”
I smile at the contestation that, just because the American people support something visibly in the national polls with which some among you disagree, those people are all wrong in their thinking. That, indeed, has happened in the past, as Starryflights has pointed out; but the past does not always dictate the future. It could well be that in this particular case the majority is right. We’ll see.
Whatever the case, it is their opinion. The polling conclusions in this instance virtually match, whether the polling entity comes from the left or the right. You have to take that into serious consideration, whether you agree with the results or not. Otherwise you are saying that you are the only intelligent person in the crowd and that the rest of these people are uninformed and unintelligent. You are thus making a mass judgment about people you don’t even know. You have every right to pronounce strong disagreement with their opinions and give your reasons for so doing but hardly the right to denigrate them as stupid in the process.
Now you might ask what old Wolverine thinks on this Arizona issue. My answer to such a poll question, not being either a lawyer or a constitutional expert, would be: “No opinion at present, with the caveat that I want to see what transpires in the courts with regard to argumentation before I go one way or another.” Easy way out? Perhaps. But that way I don’t have to insult either side by inferring that one or the other is uninformed and unintelligent when I myself do not know all the legal answers. Do I agree with the DOJ suit against Arizona? Honestly I think this whole thing could have been played better if BOTH sides had determined to sit down and work the whole issue out. Lacking that, a visit to the courts was, in my opinion, virtually inevitable on such a critical issue. So, bring it on.
Ah, so those who are continually harping on the Constitution (US that is) and if it isn’t in the Constitution, then don’t do it, are conveniently dropping it now it is the fair haired child?
@ marin
@Wolverine
Too many people have some issues with the law’s constitutionality for my taste. I also have concerns over fact that we cannot have a patchwork of laws on immigration. Then there is the issue of whose job it is to control immigration. If AZ gets its butt in a sling will it expect the rest of us to bail them out?
I think AZ would have been far better off using 287g or whatever replaces 287g. I am not a lawyer either. It probably does need to be hammered out. There are cheaper ways for sure than the route we are going.
I am very satisfied with what we have in PWC. Is it perfect, of course not. but we also are not being sued left and right.
I also don’t think the average American knows the difference in all these finer points of law. We shall see…And the bottom line for me is, its pretty hard to see the Grand Canyon without going to Arizona. After the election, things will quieten down a bit. Anything that happens during an election cycle is always suspect.
@Wolverine
Wolverine, I don’t think people are wrong in their thinking. I think they have not thought about the other side of the coin–like what the negative ramifications might be. People say, “Oh good. Someone is doing something about illegal immigration. Let’s support it.” But some of that support is just coming from people who are disgusted that the Feds haven’t done jack about the problem. If the Feds took action, they would probably be happy about that, too. Just my opinion.
MH, heard Chief Deane at Unity in the Community last night. He updated everyone on 287g and briefly described the crime stats. The meeting will be aired on FF Public Access television.
No doubt in my mind AZ should have gone with 287g.
What is FF public access television and how does one get it?
I still think many people don’t see the AZ issue in anything but 2 dimensions. People don’t understand that some of us might support increased border security and 287g but not support sb 1070.
It isn’t just a yes or no question to those of us who have kicked around this issue for the past 3 years. Do you agree, Pinko?
FF = Fairfax County Public Access. I think we can get it, but you would have to look it up.
And no, there are no easy answers, but it’s clear the original resolution (same as AZ law) was NOT a solution. 287g seems to work well because it focuses on criminal activity but does not racially profile. Everyone gets checks for citizenship at the jail.
I recall I was able to calm down for a too-brief period of time when the 287g version came into effect and our beloved BOCS Chair kept his mouth shut. Now, he has stirred it all up again and with it, a host of problems. He has disregarded the efforts of neighborhood services, the police and engaged citizens. He has absolutely no respect. So, it’s back to monitoring my blood pressure…
Pinko, it is like asking a dog not to lift his leg on a fire hydrant….That’s just what he does.
Where is our cartoon artist when we need him? Wouldn’t that make a great cartoon….?
@Moon-howler
Hee hee….
Oh, how I wish I could draw!
Would you put Corey’s head or Cuccinelli’s head on that dog lifting his leg on a fire hydrant?
Smack smack…bad MH!
@Moon-howler
Not sure. Maybe I will let JibJab handle the details.
I think I can go along with you on the penultimate and final sentences of para one #43 , Pinko. If the Feds had actually been doing what they were supposed to be doing for the past 25 years or so, you and I probably wouldn’t even be discussing this topic.