Time: VA AG "boasts of bucking" VCDL

[longwatch]

Welcome to the site!

The problem is, GMU's gun ban is/was not law (Virginia Legislative Code). It was never passed by the General Assembly nor signed by the governor. It was adopted by an appointed board of visitors in 2007. It is nothing more than a rule for a state agency (in the Virginia Administrative Code).

And Cuccinelli said they didn't have the legal authority to enact such a rule, but he defended them.

 

[Thundar]

And Cuccinelli said they didn't have the legal authority to enact such a rule, but he defended them.

He didn't just defend them, he used emotional gun grabber language in his brief. I would love to hear his explanation for that!:banghead:

 

[Citizen]

Well, it took an attack on a good man to get me to quit lurking and register for this site.

I think Cuccinelli's original letter explains it pretty well. He has an obligation (including an OATH he made on taking office) to defend the laws of Virginia. He may not support the policy of GMU, but he has to defend the laws. The Right (myself included) was incensed when Left-wing administrations (e.g., Prop 8 in CA) refused to defend state laws, so we should be applauding Cuccinelli for defending a law he doesn't agree with. The man is a class act and is EXACTLY the sort of politicians we should be supporting.

Welcome aboard, Jamie.

The oath of office is written right into the VA Constitution. It says "support the Constitution of VA", not defend its laws.

The entire purpose of government is to secure rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident...that to secure these rights governements are instituted among men..."

When government (GMU in this case) moves in the direction of violating one of those rights, defending the right is senior to defending the regulation that violates the right.

Now, Ken may have a pragmatic reason for defending GMU, somewhere between being forced to defend it because that is what AG's are "supposed" to do. Maybe others would have gotten him thrown out of office for dereliction or something. But, that does not address the gun-grabber hysteria in the brief.

 

[AbNo]

Damn you all are some impatient louts....

This ruling came out late on a Friday ON A THREE DAY WEEKEND, and you're expecting anyone, ANYONE in the government to do anything right away?

Take a short vacation and settle the hell down, the lot of ya.

 

[Vanns40]

Well, it took an attack on a good man to get me to quit lurking and register for this site.

I think Cuccinelli's original letter explains it pretty well. He has an obligation (including an OATH he made on taking office) to defend the laws of Virginia. He may not support the policy of GMU, but he has to defend the laws. The Right (myself included) was incensed when Left-wing administrations (e.g., Prop 8 in CA) refused to defend state laws, so we should be applauding Cuccinelli for defending a law he doesn't agree with. The man is a class act and is EXACTLY the sort of politicians we should be supporting.

His oath of office is NOT to defend GMU or any institution or any rule they institute. He is to defend the citizens of Virginia and the Constitution. He failed miserably. When any entity, business or government agency seeks to make defenseless and put in peril the citizens of the Commonwealth, in violation of State Preemption, the Constitution of Virginia and the US Constitution the AG must defend the Citizens of the Commonwealth against that entity, business or agency. His oath of office demands it.

He said he would do exactly that, in a public forum before he was elected and then, after he was elected did exactly the opposite. It's on video tape. It was done in a room full of people, many of whom are on this forum. How can you possibly make excuses for him and continually say "well we'll have to wait for him to explain". There is no explaining. That time is long gone. His actions speak louder than any words possibly could. The question now is, will we remember when he runs for Governor? Will we play the tape of him saying that he would not defend GMU, before he was elected AG, and remind everyone that he lied to us?

 

[Tess]

Well, it took an attack on a good man to get me to quit lurking and register for this site.

I think Cuccinelli's original letter explains it pretty well. He has an obligation (including an OATH he made on taking office) to defend the laws of Virginia. He may not support the policy of GMU, but he has to defend the laws. The Right (myself included) was incensed when Left-wing administrations (e.g., Prop 8 in CA) refused to defend state laws, so we should be applauding Cuccinelli for defending a law he doesn't agree with. The man is a class act and is EXACTLY the sort of politicians we should be supporting.

An Attorney General who said, in a public debate, he would not defend what he did not believe to be constitutional. Despite the one-man-supreme-court nature of that statement, he said he did not need to defend all laws.

 

[longwatch]

Damn you all are some impatient louts....

This ruling came out late on a Friday ON A THREE DAY WEEKEND, and you're expecting anyone, ANYONE in the government to do anything right away?

Take a short vacation and settle the hell down, the lot of ya.

I don't reckon he's going to say anything. You break one promise to a group why keep any others?

 

[Jamie]

Bring it, my people

Ok, if what you all are saying is true, you may well change my mind. Where's this brief you're referring to?

And the Youtube clip was illuminating as well.

(Dang. It's like talking with lawyers around here.)

 

[The Donkey]

Mr. Cuccinelli also could have had Special Counsel appointed to defend GMU rather than doing it himself.

He need not have "inserted" himself in this fashion.

 

[Virginiaplanter]

Ok, if what you all are saying is true, you may well change my mind. Where's this brief you're referring to?

And the Youtube clip was illuminating as well.

(Dang. It's like talking with lawyers around here.)

Opening Brief Of Ken Cuccinelli in DiGiacinto v. The Rector and Visitors of George Mason University

 

[The Donkey]

GMU has won. There is no reason for Judas Cooch to remain silent on the matter. Yet theCooch still has not explained GMU or the Time article.

Warning: Don't hold your breath!

Thundar:

He's not running yet but still:

"Hahahahahahaha."

Every time I do that, it is more difficult.

 

[Jamie]

Yeah, ok

The brief does have the one scare-tactic paragraph that sounds like the Brady Bunch. (Ok, maybe not that bad.) However, I notice that the signature attached is that of the State Solicitor General, not the AG. I do see the header saying it's the brief of the AG on behalf of GMU, but if what we're getting spun up about is a single paragraph that someone else wrote and submitted on behalf of Cuccinelli (man, I have to look up how to spell that every time), then I'm back to thinking it's much ado about ... well, very little.

[Edited to add: And thanks to those of you who welcomed me to the forum. I frickin' love gun guys.]

 

[AbNo]

I don't reckon he's going to say anything. You break one promise to a group why keep any others?

So... what's stopping you from pestering his office demanding an explanation?

You know, besides the three-day weekend that everyone in the government probably left early for?

 

[The Donkey]

So... what's stopping you from pestering his office demanding an explanation?

You know, besides the three-day weekend that everyone in the government probably left early for?

Well there are 90 days following the decision in which to request "Certiorari" before the US Supreme Court, but don't let that stop you.

I am curious as to whether somebody is pulling a cert petition together though.

 

[AbNo]

A WHAT petition, now?

 

[The Donkey]

A WHAT petition, now?

Petition for Certiorari to the US Supreme Court -- it is the next step.

 

[ed]

From: noah@cuccinelli.com
Sent: 1/18/2011 10:26:43 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Re: [em] Fw: Re:Time Magazine & Ken


Ed -

Here you go. Again please let me know if you have further questions.

Alex Altman from Time magazine did interview Ken for a recent print article titled “Briefing.”
Interviews are often recorded, but sometimes due to location or timing, staffers are not always able to be present to sit in and record them, and that was the case with this interview.

Ken is someone who has strongly and consistently been one of the Second Amendment’s greatest advocates in Virginia government. That has not changed. To be absolutely clear, the attorney general NEVER “boasted” about “bucking the gun lobby,” during this interview, as author Alex Altman wrote.

The article was first published online December 27, 2010, as “Virginia's Activist Attorney General: Man on a Mission.” At the time, Altman wrote, “Cuccinelli is not quite a doctrinaire conservative. He has opposed expansive application of the death penalty, drawn fire for ruling against his base on a
gun-rights issue...,” both of which are true (actually, he never “ruled” on a gun rights issue; he is simply defending his client, a state university, in court).

In a January 10, 2011, rewrite of the article for the print edition titled “Briefing,” Altman changed the wording of this passage to, “The Cuccinelli Doctrine comes with asterisks. He boasts of bucking the gun lobby when he affirmed George Mason’s right to limit firearms on campus.”

It is clear that the author beefed up the language for the printed magazine piece. There was no “boasting” by the attorney general. That was a leap by the author.

The media often labels Ken as an “activist” pushing a political agenda. For this reason, the
attorney general consistently has to disabuse reporters of this notion by informing them that in his office, getting the law right on any issue always comes before any political considerations. That is the oath he took, and that is the oath by which he abides.

During the interview with Time, once again, Ken disabused this reporter by giving him examples of instances where his sworn oath as attorney general required him to defend laws that he
might disagree with from a policy perspective. One example included the George Mason University guns on campus case, where he is defending his client (GMU) in court, because the client is operating correctly under the law. Even though as a policy matter he may prefer his Second Amendment friends’
position, he has a sworn duty to defend his client on the legal issue.

Ken’s statement about putting the law above his personal feelings was not a boast about bucking anyone, but was rather a statement of the tough decisions that he has to make in his role as
the state’s top lawyer. Again, it is clear that the author beefed up the language for the printed magazine piece with an unfortunate choice of words, and in doing so, ascribed to the attorney general an emotion that was not part of the interview.

 

[The Donkey]

From: noah@cuccinelli.com
Sent: 1/18/2011 10:26:43 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Re: [em] Fw: Re:Time Magazine & Ken


Ed -

Here you go. Again please let me know if you have further questions.

Alex Altman from Time magazine did interview Ken for a recent print article titled “Briefing.”
Interviews are often recorded, but sometimes due to location or timing, staffers are not always able to be present to sit in and record them, and that was the case with this interview.

Ken is someone who has strongly and consistently been one of the Second Amendment’s greatest advocates in Virginia government. That has not changed. To be absolutely clear, the attorney general NEVER “boasted” about “bucking the gun lobby,” during this interview, as author Alex Altman wrote.

The article was first published online December 27, 2010, as “Virginia's Activist Attorney General: Man on a Mission.” At the time, Altman wrote, “Cuccinelli is not quite a doctrinaire conservative. He has opposed expansive application of the death penalty, drawn fire for ruling against his base on a
gun-rights issue...,” both of which are true (actually, he never “ruled” on a gun rights issue; he is simply defending his client, a state university, in court).

In a January 10, 2011, rewrite of the article for the print edition titled “Briefing,” Altman changed the wording of this passage to, “The Cuccinelli Doctrine comes with asterisks. He boasts of bucking the gun lobby when he affirmed George Mason’s right to limit firearms on campus.”

It is clear that the author beefed up the language for the printed magazine piece. There was no “boasting” by the attorney general. That was a leap by the author.

The media often labels Ken as an “activist” pushing a political agenda. For this reason, the
attorney general consistently has to disabuse reporters of this notion by informing them that in his office, getting the law right on any issue always comes before any political considerations. That is the oath he took, and that is the oath by which he abides.

During the interview with Time, once again, Ken disabused this reporter by giving him examples of instances where his sworn oath as attorney general required him to defend laws that he
might disagree with from a policy perspective. One example included the George Mason University guns on campus case, where he is defending his client (GMU) in court, because the client is operating correctly under the law. Even though as a policy matter he may prefer his Second Amendment friends’
position, he has a sworn duty to defend his client on the legal issue.

Ken’s statement about putting the law above his personal feelings was not a boast about bucking anyone, but was rather a statement of the tough decisions that he has to make in his role as
the state’s top lawyer. Again, it is clear that the author beefed up the language for the printed magazine piece with an unfortunate choice of words, and in doing so, ascribed to the attorney general an emotion that was not part of the interview.

So its not that he disagrees with OCDO or VCDL on policy -- only that he disagrees with OCDO and VCDL on the fundamental meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

You all elected this clown: it is up to you to put him back into the private practice of law.

 

[DontTreadOnMeVa]

So its not that he disagrees with OCDO or VCDL on policy -- only that he disagrees with OCDO and VCDL on the fundamental meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

You all elected this clown: it is up to you to put him back into the private practice of law.

Excuse me if I dont care what a dem thinks about how we should vote.

 

[Citizen]

So its not that he disagrees with OCDO or VCDL on policy -- only that he disagrees with OCDO and VCDL on the fundamental meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

You all elected this clown: it is up to you to put him back into the private practice of law.

I'll keep this in mind when Webb next screws up.

And, at the end of Goldman Sach Obama's term.

Jeezus, I figured an attorney would be smarter than to hang one like that out there.