For John, BLUF: Are they beginning to sound desperate in DC? Nothing to see here; just move along.
Over at the International New York Times is an article on Attorney General Eric Holder telling State Attorneys General they don't have to enforce State laws they feel are discriminatory.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Monday injected the Obama administration into the emotional and politicized debate over the future of state same-sex marriage bans, declaring in an interview that state attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws that they believe are discriminatory.I wonder if that extends to crack cocaine? In the past it has been contended that the law is prejudiced against Blacks, who tend to use crack more than powdered. (And such a theory would not be wrong.)
Mr. Holder was careful not to encourage his state counterparts to disavow their own laws, but said that officials who have carefully studied bans on gay marriage could refuse to defend them.
And what about laws against polygamy. Are they not the representation of a Western Civilization prejudice not share by hundreds of millions, if not billions of people around the world (and here in the US)?
Yes, this is a slippery slope. Yes, sort of like a super signing statement. Except in this case the US Attorney General is saying State Attorneys General can ignore both their Legislatures and their Governors.
This is just a cap to Ham Sandwich Nation. This means one can ignore the law to protect one's friends. I don't mind that so much when the Supreme Judicial Court does it, but when an Attorney General does it it smells corrupt.
If you don't trust our regular democratic institutions to right things, and wish to substitute the power of great men for those democratic institutions, then maybe you should move to New York, or Harvard.
Regards — Cliff