Uglysasquatch wrote:
It makes a difference because if they're elected, then if he/she didn't do as the people wanted, then they'd be removed next cycle.
Public pressure can require the person who appointed them to request their resignation though. We could argue that's technically quicker. Neither changes the fact that the AGs job isn't to decide what laws to defend though.
Quote:
AG's always decide on what cases are worth their time and what aren't so this really isn't out of the ordinary.
When prosecuting, yes. When defending the constitutionality of the law itself, it's generally assumed that this is part of their job description and not optional. Obviously, anything is optional if you want to be technical enough though. Hence why I said I think it's "BS", and not "illegal" or somesuch. Although one could make an argument that failing to do so qualifies as failing to "faithfully fulfill the duties of the office of ...", but that's still only subject to whatever pressure can be applied. Who's going to charge the AG with failure to fulfill his duty?
Kinda similar to the issues with the DoJ right now. Who watches the watchmen. When it's the part of our government which is charged with enforcing the law, which is either failing to do so or even breaking it themselves, who does something about that? I know that many people get so caught up on supporting "their side" that this sort of thing gets lost, but we really ought to be concerned about this kind of behavior by our government regardless of which "side" we're on and whether something happens to benefit us at the moment. It's just a bad practice to allow to happen.