Ping (to some who showed interest on prior threads)
Unfortunately, FR mandates that anything from Political Vanguard be posted in "bloggers" vs. "news."
I can't find any news source that has covered this, so here it is!
Why The 1980 Attorney General's Opinion Does NOT Help Jerry
by Thomas Del Beccaro
Attorney General Opinion This is the Attorney General Opinion that Jerry Brown claims provides all the authority he needs to meet the qualifications to be Attorney General.
Jerry is wrong because:
- Attorney General Opinions are not law. Even if they were . . .
- This advisory opinion relates to the qualifications for "Judges" Not Attorney General. That is important because . . .
- The standard for qualification for Judges is different than the standard for Attorney General in CA.
- Standard for Judges: [The person must be "member of the State Bar or served as a judge of a court of record in this State."
- Standard for Attorneys General: ["admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his election or appointment to such office”] - the right to practice law requires an "active" license which Jerry had only 3 of the needed 5 years.
- Finally, Jerry cites footnote language to the following effect: "inactive members are members of the State Bar." As we see from the above, that is meaningful with respect to judges but not attorneys general.
- In short, this opinion is unrelated to the qualifications for Attorney General. Sorry Jerry.
(snip)
Full AG Opinion and Analysis follows... too long to post.