U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told the New York Times that if a state has a gay marriage ban in place and that state’s Attorney General doesn’t agree with it, he or she does not have to defend it.
Byron York of the Washington Examiner is stunned by Holder encouraging AGs to ignore their oaths of office if they have a personal problem with a particular law:
Eric Holder: State attorneys general don't have to defend portions of state constitutions & laws they disagree with. http://t.co/0KgPahpgtf
— Byron York (@ByronYork) February 24, 2014
NYT wrote Holder 'careful not to encourage his state counterparts to disavow their own laws.' But that's what he did. http://t.co/teLGU7tfP8
— Byron York (@ByronYork) February 24, 2014
NYT clearly thought it newsworthy that US AG would say state AGs have no obligation to defend state law/constitution they disagree with…
— Byron York (@ByronYork) February 24, 2014
Holder’s legal “leniency” seems only focused on laws barring gay marriage, but how fast would Holder crack down if a state AG refused to defend a law that has legalized gay marriage?
@ByronYork One senses, too, that if a state had a law enshrining gay marriage & a conserv AG refusing 2 enforce, Holder wd b 1st to denounce
— Tom Kattman (@TomKattman) February 24, 2014
@ByronYork Very disturbing. AG's are sworn to uphold the law, including laws with which they disagree. Are we a nation of laws or men?
— M. G. A. (@edw8ri) February 24, 2014
Shorter Holder: state AGs should "…preserve, protect and defend the parts of the Constitution they agree with." http://t.co/C2J6mOrQsL
— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) February 24, 2014
Absolutely amazing, though not shocking in the least.
