Claire Guthrie Gastañaga wrote an alarming blog entry yesterday about Attorney General Bob McDonnell’s opinion #05-094, in which he asserts that the governor does not have the power to protect public employees from discrimination on the basis of perceived sexual orientation. McDonnell’s opinion is premised not on the matter itself but, rather, his interpretations of the inherent power of the governor. It is Claire’s understanding — and she’s a lot smarter than me, so I’m not even able to argue with her — that his opinion is disguised as procedural one but that it is, in fact, a political one. He is an activist attorney general, as Claire suspected that he might be back in October.
Anyhow, read Claire’s blog entry. And steel yourself of four years under an activist attorney general.
Incidentally, local folks may be interested to know that I’ll be WINA Sunday morning, beginning at 8am, to talk about the latest revelations in McDonnell’s campaign fundraising scheme.
Waldo, you’re not the only one who can’t follow this argument: that the Attorney General relied on non-political principles in ruling against the executive order, therefore he must have a political motive.
Now, if the AG’s opinion cited only the Old Testament as authority for his view, I might be suspicious. Instead, the McDonnell opinion cites such authorities as the prior opinions of those well-known conservatives, Gerald Baliles and Mary Sue Terry.
I don’t see that this legal opinion has any impact. The Governor seems very comfortable ignoring it. I assume it now sits on a shelf. Does the AG now sue the Governor? Not likely.
Steve makes a good point, I must admit
All’s I know is that I don’t know enough to have a meaningful opinion on this.
I take on the merits of this opinion here:
http://new-dominion.blogspot.com/2006/02/mcdonnells-poor-legal-reasoning.html
Mr. Minor, I’m surprised you put so much stock in the preamble of the EO. Relying on AG opinions of former AGs does not remove the stain of political posturing in an opinion. Why would the issue only be politically motivated if the opinion quoted from the Bible? Poor legal reasoning is poor legal reasoning, regardless of the cited sources.
I was also surprised to see no mention of Boynton.
All this confirms is that the VA Marriage Ammendment has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with reducing the rights of homosexuals.
Saying that McDonnell’s opinion has no political component is like saying that George Bush’s national marriage ammendment has no political component.
They’re part and parcel to the wholesale discrimination against homosexuals. When did hate become a Virginia Value? When did hate become an American Value?