John Suthers fighting partisan battles in other states
This blog hasn't had the friendliest relationship with Colorado attorney general John Suthers, his alliance with the Trailhead Group, and his dishonest campaign against 44.
The latest reason to believe Colorado's voters made the wrong choice on election day is in the Denver Post:
One of state government's top budget writers is challenging Colorado Attorney General John Suthers for spending taxpayer money to join fights in other states over controversial issues such as gay marriage and the Pledge of Allegiance.
Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, wants Suthers to explain why the attorney general's office is plunging into partisan legal battles in other states while begging for more money to protect Colorado consumers from fraud.
"If they don't have the resources to go after people defrauding consumers," Pommer asked, "how do they have the resources to go around the country filing 'friend-of-the-court' briefs?"
Putting the question in such black and white terms isn't quite fair. But I would like to know what interest Colorado's taxpayers have in some of the cases Suthers' office has taken on:
According to its 2005 annual report, the attorney general's office joined other states to:
Defend a Nebraska law that defines marriage as the union between a man and woman.
Argue that Kansas juries do not need to be instructed to reject the death penalty in certain cases.
Defend a Virginia law that allows the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.
Argue that the District of Columbia should not be allowed to hold out-of-state firearm manufacturers strictly liable for gun-related crimes committed in the district.
Suthers should spend less time arguing gun cases in Washington DC and more time worrying about the people who elected him.
The latest reason to believe Colorado's voters made the wrong choice on election day is in the Denver Post:
One of state government's top budget writers is challenging Colorado Attorney General John Suthers for spending taxpayer money to join fights in other states over controversial issues such as gay marriage and the Pledge of Allegiance.
Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, wants Suthers to explain why the attorney general's office is plunging into partisan legal battles in other states while begging for more money to protect Colorado consumers from fraud.
"If they don't have the resources to go after people defrauding consumers," Pommer asked, "how do they have the resources to go around the country filing 'friend-of-the-court' briefs?"
Putting the question in such black and white terms isn't quite fair. But I would like to know what interest Colorado's taxpayers have in some of the cases Suthers' office has taken on:
According to its 2005 annual report, the attorney general's office joined other states to:
Defend a Nebraska law that defines marriage as the union between a man and woman.
Argue that Kansas juries do not need to be instructed to reject the death penalty in certain cases.
Defend a Virginia law that allows the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.
Argue that the District of Columbia should not be allowed to hold out-of-state firearm manufacturers strictly liable for gun-related crimes committed in the district.
Suthers should spend less time arguing gun cases in Washington DC and more time worrying about the people who elected him.
2 Comments:
now why didn't this information come to light a month ago!!
I cross-posted at Square State. And there are related stories at Colorado Pols, Colorado Confidential and ProgressNowAction.
Post a Comment
<< Home