 |
| Supreme Logo |
So can the Attorney General of Washington, do what you want, or just a lawyer who works hard, having to take into account the guidelines of the government officials?
This problem was discussed on Thursday after the state Supreme Court issued two seemingly contradictory statements about how the Attorney General Rob McKenna should go to work. In the city of Seattle v. McKenna, the judges unanimously rejected the attempt to force Seattle McKenna reduced participation in a trial with other lawyers that Republicans are generally opposed to a new federal health care. Gov. Chris Gregoire, a Democrat, opposes some of McKenna in national tests and asked why has the ability to take part in the absence of a request by the state or other officials. But the judges wrote: "The people of Washington state, by law, belongs to the Attorney General with broad powers, and the decision of the Attorney General McKenna to maintain the ban on the application of the law (Health) noted that wide powers. "
However, in another decision Thursday, Goldmark C. McKenna, McKenna, said the Supreme Court, should cover the land commissioner, Peter Goldmark, who wants to call the McKenna case, the right way Okanogan County. County Public Utility District won a lower court ruling of its operation the supply lines to the State Land Trust, which manages the Goldmark. McKenna had agreed to the request for Goldmark. In a split decision, the Supreme Court to take the matter said McKenna.
"Under the law, the responsibility is clear. Because we find no discretion in this duty, directly to the Attorney General to provide legal representation to the Commissioner," the president said.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Debra Stephens told his colleagues tried to have it both ways.
"We say to the Attorney General McKenna has" the power to act justly, state or federal, trial or appeal to "a matter of public interest, provided that it is" the factual or legal cause of action cognizable. “‘Moreover, the decision McKenna rejects the argument that "when the Governor and the Attorney General disagrees, the Attorney General may proceed on behalf of the state." This view is at odds with the analysis of most. Reading the two cases together, it is unclear why a writ of mandamus is appropriate to force the Attorney General to follow the will of the High Commissioner in this litigation, but is inadequate in McKenna. According to our decision McKenna, I recognize that the duty of the Attorney General to represent the State where the agents are not subject to a writ of mandamus.
Although the role of the Attorney General to provide assistance is required by law, is essentially the legal and judicial discretion by an independent elected. The legal requirement is that the Attorney General, at its discretion. This is not an easy task in the Special Ministerial mandamus. "
Jason Mercier, an analyst at Washington Policy Center, was also hit by the apparent incongruity of the decision of two.
"So in these two decisions, the Attorney General the independent counsel chosen by the people, or just the government lawyer responsible for approving its customers wants?" When asked Mercier. "If the lawyer of the person initially elected independently makes sense. If instead of the Attorney General is nothing more than counsel for the government, maybe the office would be better suited as a designated position. "Thus on the basis of the information.
