Replies

If he had not taken the job we'd be stuck with some jerk who actually BELIEVED such laws ARE Constitutional. I want an AG who will stand before SCOTUS and say "sorry, I know it's my job to defend this crappy unconstitutional law but frankly there is no way to defend it; the defense rests." (Yes, Ashcroft is presenting an actual argument to defend the AWB, but it's really just a veiled way of saying "this is indefensable.") The alternative is an AG who will stand before SCOTUS and say "why yes indeed banning arms and free speech is Constitutional..."

Re: your #27 I respectfully ask: Which is better- someone who believes in a law and fights to uphold it, or someone who "doesn't believe" in a law and still fights to uphold it? Sorry, but your "take" seems like wishful thinking to me. What do you base it on?

The argument that he will be showing them he is doing his job will be a dud result if he stands up and argues the way you desire him to. I do believe the legal profession has a name and penalties for attorneys who try to do a half-assed job of presenting a case....and that is exactly what he would have to be trying to do!

Don't you realize the liberals would have an absolute field day excoriating him for a half-assed effort? You have to know the GOP can't fight its way out of a wet paper sack, let alone best the worst of the Dems....they get all tongue-tied or usually just roll over and take the screwing.

Sadly, most of the time what we want in our leaders NEVER comes into the arena....the bastards are all too willing to compromise and give away the ship everyone seems so damn worried about whether its gonna turn around or not!