Discussion for article #228622
No doubt he would also oppose giving the vote to women and oppose freeing slaves.
17 Likes
If the Attorney General is simply “the state’s lawyer”, duty bound to defend whatever the state does, no matter how repugnant, why elect him at all? The state could just contract with private lawyers to argue their side in court.
26 Likes
What a guy!
4 Likes
Makes a great headline but there is nothing here.
7 Likes
Justice Clarence Thomas and his (white) wife might not like this.
Edit:
As well as Mitch McConnell, John Derbyshire, Michelle Malkin, etc.
7 Likes
Well, he’s got a lock on the Klan tea party vote.
8 Likes
It’s actually a pretty interesting question. There’s a moral component to most of the big and many of the small choices we make, whether we’re charged with deciding on that matter or not. The question of whether a thing is right or wrong comes up regularly and it’s not all that brave to say it’s not in your job description to think about it.
7 Likes
I am all in favor of forcing you to accept my beliefs under the color of the law. This way I don’t have to express my bigotry. I can just say “it’s the law baby live with it”.
9 Likes
Another effing moron…the GOP… the party of perpetual brainless fools.
3 Likes
Classic click-bait sleazery, leaving out the “in 1950” part, eh?
That’s our TPMZ.
1 Like
The article doesn’t actually match the headline. What he said was that he would uphold the law no matter how distasteful the law is. That is the responsibility of an AG. It is the Legislature who makes laws and the AG has a responsibility to uphold the law. Here was his actual quote, which does not seem al that unreasonable.
“Love and the law are colorblind, as they should be,” he said, as quoted by the Journal-Sentinel. “Many shameful, racist laws were changed over the course of time in this country by legislators, the courts and the people’s direct votes. But if Susan Happ wants to make up new laws, or change old ones, she’s running for the wrong job.”
What is racist about that statement.
2 Likes
What is here is that the interviewer does not understand what the duty of a state’s Attorney General is and that Schimel didn’t correct him. The AG is the state’s chief law enforcement officer. It is his duty to enforce the law whether he agrees with it or not. If a law is challenged in the courts it is his duty to render to the state his opinion on whether the law is defensible or not. It is not his duty to defend laws in court when there is no defense. It is his duty to report to the state that the law is, in his opinion, indefensible. Enforcing the law and defending it in court are two entirely separate things.
8 Likes
As the State’s Attorney, you have an obligation to give your best legal advice to the government as to the Constitutionality of legislation. When you are sworn into the bar and into office, you take an oath to uphold that Constitution.
3 Likes
Sure he can give his advice, but he cannot rewrite laws. If there is a constitutionality issue, then it needs to be challenged in the Courts to decide.
Scott Walker has been handing out economic development grants like candy to his campaign donors, and this guy is worried about interracial marriage. Wisconsin voters need to get better informed, and quick.
7 Likes
It’s like the state is a serial killer legally represented by a public defender.
1 Like
So if Wisconsin had a law on the books defending relationships between, say, a man and his goat, Brad would go to bat for Aberforth Dumbledore?
Of course.
The Dog Whistles are getting awfully LOUD in Wisconsin these days.
4 Likes
That was his RESPONSE to the stories written about his previous answer to a question about laws banning interracial marriage. As others have pointed out, the position he stated in his answer to the interviewer’s question is arguably defensible, but if you’re choosing to defend him, at least pick the intellectually honest statement to defend, not the one his communications consultant crafted for him after the fact.
4 Likes