[ow can you consider an issue to be “settled” by a 5-4 decision that overturns hundreds of years years of almost worldwide consensus? And, regarding Roe v. Wade, why should we honor a “colossal mistake”? Aren’t “colossal mistakes” the sorts of things that you try to fix? ]
You are referring to decisions made by the SCOTUS, 1/3 of our branched of government. They declared both the law.
Disagree or not. That’s how checks and balances work, good or bad.
It is not the position of the USAG to determine what is law and what isn’t. It’s his/her position to follow it.
I don't like it either, but maybe it's because he knows that that horrible decision can, and probably will, be overturned by an upcoming, constitutional judiciary? If he can't defer to the decision of this current panel of judges, how can he defer to a new panel reversing the decision?
“I don’t like those answers at all, especially the one on gay marriage”
To be fair this is how he has to respond. It is his role the enforce the law. As AG he can urge for a change in the law but must respect as it is until such time that it is corrected. Unless of course you are a left wing hack like Lynch.
We are a nation of laws.
“I don’t like those answers at all, especially the one on gay marriage. How can you consider an issue to be “settled” by a 5-4 decision that overturns hundreds of years years of almost worldwide consensus? And, regarding Roe v. Wade, why should we honor a “colossal mistake”? Aren’t “colossal mistakes” the sorts of things that you try to fix?”
Very good questions - I’m with you on this.
The Attorney General cannot and should not try to overturn or refuse to enforce the decisions of the Supreme Court that he doesn’t agree with. It’s not his place. If this were a Supreme Court nominee, then that would be a different matter and those answers would be worrisome.
*I don’t like those answers at all, especially the one on gay marriage. How can you consider an issue to be “settled” by a 5-4 decision that overturns hundreds of years years of almost worldwide consensus? And, regarding Roe v. Wade, why should we honor a “colossal mistake”? Aren’t “colossal mistakes” the sorts of things that you try to fix?*
They are the correct answers. What he does in the future might, shall we say, deviate from these initial responses. In any case, having an AG uphold the law rather than define it is a welcome change from the past 8 years.