The parties submit their Petitions and briefs to the court. The clerks are employees of the court performing ministerial duties for the court. The clerk does not ‘present argument’ to the court, since they are employees and under the direction of the court. The ‘argument’ is presented to the court when the specific document is filed with the court. It is the clerk's office which accepts the document on behalf of the court.
The AG’s office and it's duties are never basically that of a clerk. It's legal duties are to be the ADVOCATE for the state and officials and ensure ENFORCEMENT of the state's law's. If you testify in committee regarding your bill that the AG is basically just a clerk, I promise you that your bill will never make it out of committee. You must be very careful as to how you phrase your arguments.
The only way that the AG’s responsibilities that were stated in the longer version differed from a clerk is that the AG was also to file the case in the first place, which is something a clerk cannot do.
My point in comparing the AG to a clerk is to say that the AG would have no more conflict of interest than a clerk would have, and in his/her role as defined in the bill would no more impact the legitimacy of the case or the rights of the plaintiff than having a clerk submit documents would impact that.
Without comparing the AG to a clerk, the bill defines the AG’s funciton in the case as being one who collects written arguments and gives them to the court - simply submitting everything offered to support either side of the case. Allowing all voices to be heard. On what grounds would either the dem party, the rep party, or the DOJ claim that this role violated due process?
Ultimately, the AG is SUPPOSED to represent the interests of both the government AND the people. If there is a conflict of interest there, then the position of AG is useless. The trouble we’ve had is that the AG’s for the most part side with their cronies in the government because those are the people who butter their bread. And that is a large part of what has put this country in the lawless state it is in. The US attorneys do the same thing. We the people have NOBODY defending us. Nobody. And the courts deny “we the people” standing because none of us has particularized harm, since we’re all being screwed equally.
The system is very convenient and “pat” for the lawyers and judges. They can work things however they want, so they like it and will fight anybody who interrupts the status quo. It’s just us little people who get shafted by it.
The judicial and executive branches are NOT accountable to us in any way, shape, or form. That leaves the legislative branch. Will they stand up for us? That remains to be seen. Sounds like you’re saying that the other two branches can totally wipe out the legislative branch if they try to stand up for us anyway.
“The man” always finds a way to hold down the little guy. That’s what government does. I had hoped that this form of government was different, but maybe that’s my idealism coming through. Maybe this form of government is no different than every other tyranny; maybe America has never been exceptional. The more I listen to the lawyers, the more I fear that to be the case.
That’s why lawyers are mostly poison to me. My daughter wants to be a lawyer. She’s 11. She thinks if she can become a lawyer quick enough she can fix this mess. I don’t even know what to tell her.