• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal immig

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,402
Reaction score
16,255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I think this makes sense that she uses another lawyer to defend Arizona's law that practically mirror's federal law.The state AG is against the law why and how can he be trusted to defend it? It would be expecting a lawyer with strong anti-2nd amendment views to stick up for constitutional rights.,especially 2nd amendment rights.


Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal immigrant law defense | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times
A sudden new twist in the ongoing rhetorical and legal struggle over Arizona's tough new law to round up illegal immigrants.

Late Friday night as the Memorial Day weekend began, Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in effect, suspended the state's Democratic attorney general from defending the new law in upcoming legal challenges. The measure, known as S.B. 1070, is due to take effect this summer and, among other things, allows local police under federal guidelines to check the immigration status of people they stop. (For a full list of background stories, see Related Items below.)

The governor's abrupt action against Terry Goddard, her likely Democratic opponent in this fall's gubernatorial election, came after months of disputes between the two and at the end of a long day of legal maneuvering in both Arizona and the nation's capital.

As the state's chief lawyer, Goddard would be expected to take the lead in defending Arizona against....

...challenges to the Legislature's action, which erupted after years of state frustration with the federal government's inability to secure the state border with Mexico against illegal immigrants, drugs and criminals.

However, Goddard has vocally opposed the measure, so much so that the Legislature gave the governor advance authority to hire outside legal counsel.

On Friday, Goddard met with the Obama administration's Atty. Gen. Eric Holder in Washington, then held a news conference just hours before Brewer's handpicked attorneys were to meet with Holder, an outspoken critic of the law.

Brewer said, "I believe the federal government should use its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the State of Arizona."

Seeing apparent collusion between the two Democrat lawyers, Brewer pulled the plug Friday night.

Her statement (full text below) said:

Due to Attorney General Goddard’s curious coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice today and his consistent opposition to Arizona’s new immigration laws, I will direct my legal team to defend me and the State of Arizona rather than the Attorney General in the lawsuits challenging Arizona’s immigration laws.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,550
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal i

I dont think it makes sense for one person, ie the governor, to change the system of government. That task should be left to the legislation and only come into affect at the end of the term of the person serving in the office which will change if that person is an elected official. The attorney general in Arizona is an elected position and the people who elected that individual did so with the expectations that they wouldn't be undercut simply because they were politically inconvenient. This person should be allowed to do the job the people of Arizona elected her to do.
We wouldn't fire all the police officers in Arizona who didnt' support the passage of this new immigration law because we can't expect them to enforce it, would we?

This reminds me of FDR's attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court by adding 6 more judges because he didn't like what they were saying about the legislation he was supporting in Congress.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal i

The AG's job is to defend state laws when they are challenged. If the AG has actively opposed a state law and is holding joint press-conferences with the people who will be suing the state to overturn the law, he cannot do his job effectively and should be replaced.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,550
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal i

I'd agree that may be more political than a state attorney general should be getting, but I don't think its enough to justify removing them from their post or in this case forbidding them to do their job. Lawyers are required as part of the bar to play the role they are given in court, even the shoe bomber had lawyers who were native New Yorkers and probably thought the guy was scum. However they were trusted as lawyers, ya I know that sounds weird to say, to do their job and defend this individual to the best of their abilities which everyone agreed they did.

Until it becomes clear the state attorney isn't doing his job to the utmost of his ability than replacement shouldnt be considered.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal i

I'd agree that may be more political than a state attorney general should be getting, but I don't think its enough to justify removing them from their post or in this case forbidding them to do their job. Lawyers are required as part of the bar to play the role they are given in court, even the shoe bomber had lawyers who were native New Yorkers and probably thought the guy was scum. However they were trusted as lawyers, ya I know that sounds weird to say, to do their job and defend this individual to the best of their abilities which everyone agreed they did.

Until it becomes clear the state attorney isn't doing his job to the utmost of his ability than replacement shouldnt be considered.
It's not about the politics, it's about the fact that you're supposed to be a zealous advocate for your client. It's pretty obvious that this guy cannot credibly do so here.

Imagine that a public defender is assigned to handle a murder case. In the weeks leading up to the case, he holds a press conference with the prosecutor where both sides agree that the guy is guilty as sin and deserves to be hanged. Do you think that guy could then turn around and capably serve as a defense lawyer?
 
Last edited:

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,550
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal i

Well look at the shoe-bomber case, I'm sure if his lawyers were asked they would make a very passionate argument about how terrorism is bad, as I'm sure anybody would, but still they were chosen as his public defenders. Same with this state attorney, hes a lawyer and professional and I would trust such an individual to act professionally regardless of the circumstances. None of know enough about this man as an individual or how these immigration cases will be handled or if they will even go up to the level requiring the attention of the state attorney.

I'd prefer to let the man do his job and see if he lives up to the oath he swore and professional ethic of his profession, before judging him.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
23,957
Reaction score
8,649
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal i

IMO, he was taken off the case because he is running for governor and has come out against the law. Yes, he said he would defend the States position, but think of the free air time exsposure as he makes the run for office. I see nothing wrong in selecting someone else. That said, if Terry was running for govenor, then he should have been allowed to do the job he was elected to do.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,402
Reaction score
16,255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal i

Well look at the shoe-bomber case, I'm sure if his lawyers were asked they would make a very passionate argument about how terrorism is bad, as I'm sure anybody would, but still they were chosen as his public defenders. Same with this state attorney, hes a lawyer and professional and I would trust such an individual to act professionally regardless of the circumstances. None of know enough about this man as an individual or how these immigration cases will be handled or if they will even go up to the level requiring the attention of the state attorney.

I'd prefer to let the man do his job and see if he lives up to the oath he swore and professional ethic of his profession, before judging him.

The AG's views creates a serious conflict of interest. It would be like having white racist serve on the jury of a trial where the defendant if black. Oaths a lot of times do not mean ****. How many times has a politician swore to uphold the constitution but didn't?
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,550
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal i

He was elected by the people to do the job of the state's AG, doesn't it bother you james that the chosen representative of the people is being denied the opportunity to do his job because a higher ranking official doesnt like his political stance. And all for what? Because he expresses his own political view points which aren't exactly in line with the governor's? Its a direct violation of the democratic process in my opinion because its done NOT because the AG has actually violated his oath yet but because we THINK he MIGHT violate it.
Reminds of that Tom Cruise movie Minority Report where they arrest people who they THINK might be about to commit a murder, but who havent actually committed any crime.

You are very passionate about the Constitution, where in it is it legal to punish someone for an action they haven't committed yet but someone thinks they might do sometime in the future?

This really strikes close to my heart and makes me angrier than most things I see specifically because its MY state's AG. I am an Arizonan, and you ask me why I don't support this new immigration law well here is one of the reasons. The individual we elected is being denied the chance to do their full job, its total snobbery from the governor. Its illegally redefining our state Constitution in my opinion and I'd be hard pressed to see the court here, if it goes to court, find an argument that could re-interpret our Constitution to make this a legal action.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal i

Well look at the shoe-bomber case, I'm sure if his lawyers were asked they would make a very passionate argument about how terrorism is bad, as I'm sure anybody would, but still they were chosen as his public defenders. Same with this state attorney, hes a lawyer and professional and I would trust such an individual to act professionally regardless of the circumstances. None of know enough about this man as an individual or how these immigration cases will be handled or if they will even go up to the level requiring the attention of the state attorney.

I'd prefer to let the man do his job and see if he lives up to the oath he swore and professional ethic of his profession, before judging him.
Your shoe bomber example isn't really analogous. If you say that terrorism is bad, that's not the same as saying that your client is bad or that he should go to jail for life. If this guy had simply said that he believed our immigration laws needed to be reformed, this wouldn't be an issue.

It's a problem because he came out on the record against the exact law he's supposed to be defending, and then held a meeting and press conference with opposing counsel. That would be like the shoe bomber's attorney declaring him guilty and holding a press conference with the prosecutor to demand the death penalty. It's entirely inappropriate and a strong indication (if not proof) of an inability to serve as a competent and zealous advocate.

As a side note, I don't know AZ's rules of professional responsibility, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he has an ethical obligation to recuse himself even in the absence of this decision.

He was elected by the people to do the job of the state's AG, doesn't it bother you james that the chosen representative of the people is being denied the opportunity to do his job because a higher ranking official doesnt like his political stance. And all for what? Because he expresses his own political view points which aren't exactly in line with the governor's?
Again, it's not about whether he disagrees with the governor's political views. It's about whether he is acting as a competent and zealous advocate on behalf of his client, the state of AZ, in defending a law he's condemned.

Its a direct violation of the democratic process in my opinion because its done NOT because the AG has actually violated his oath yet but because we THINK he MIGHT violate it.
Reminds of that Tom Cruise movie Minority Report where they arrest people who they THINK might be about to commit a murder, but who havent actually committed any crime.
This isn't about what he might do in the future, it's what he's already done that renders him incapable of handling the case.

You are very passionate about the Constitution, where in it is it legal to punish someone for an action they haven't committed yet but someone thinks they might do sometime in the future?
Again, this is about what he already did, but moreover, this isn't a punishment, nor does it implicate the constitution.

This really strikes close to my heart and makes me angrier than most things I see specifically because its MY state's AG. I am an Arizonan, and you ask me why I don't support this new immigration law well here is one of the reasons.
So vote out the people who voted for it. Simple enough.

The individual we elected is being denied the chance to do their full job, its total snobbery from the governor. Its illegally redefining our state Constitution in my opinion and I'd be hard pressed to see the court here, if it goes to court, find an argument that could re-interpret our Constitution to make this a legal action.
And in order for the court to conduct a full and honest review of that question, it needs zealous and competent advocates on both sides. This guy would not be one.
 
Last edited:

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,402
Reaction score
16,255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal i

He was elected by the people to do the job of the state's AG, doesn't it bother you james that the chosen representative of the people is being denied the opportunity to do his job because a higher ranking official doesnt like his political stance. .
So you would hire a defense lawyer that thinks you are guilty as sin and wants you locked away for life?

And all for what? Because he expresses his own political view points which aren't exactly in line with the governor's?

His views contradict the states law that he is supposed to defend. That is a conflict of interest.

Its a direct violation of the democratic process in my opinion because its done NOT because the AG has actually violated his oath yet but because we THINK he MIGHT violate it.
Last I checked it is not illegal for someone to removed from a case if there is a conflict of interest.


Reminds of that Tom Cruise movie Minority Report where they arrest people who they THINK might be about to commit a murder, but who havent actually committed any crime.
Not even comparable. The AG voice strong opposition to the law,so this creates a conflict of interest.


You are very passionate about the Constitution, where in it is it legal to punish someone for an action they haven't committed yet but someone thinks they might do sometime in the future?
So you support politicians not recusing themselves if there was a conflict of interest in construction of maintenance projects?

This really strikes close to my heart and makes me angrier than most things I see specifically because its MY state's AG. I am an Arizonan, and you ask me why I don't support this new immigration law well here is one of the reasons.
So this is why you want a AG to defend a law that he strongly opposes.

The individual we elected is being denied the chance to do their full job, its total snobbery from the governor.
It has nothing to do with snobbery. The AG has a strong opposition to the new Arizona law. It would be like an accused individual trusting the prosecutor to defend him.

Its illegally redefining our state Constitution in my opinion and I'd be hard pressed to see the court here, if it goes to court, find an argument that could re-interpret our Constitution to make this a legal action
She is not redefining anything. She is removing a conflict of interest .
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,550
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal i

Since when does a disagreement of opinion constitute a conflict of interest? I just watched the Corbert Report and saw the governor of New Mexico talking about how he wants to legalize marijuana in his state. Such we remove that governor because we can no longer trust him to enforce drug laws because he's come out against some of them?

Same thing with this law, simply because someone is personally against it does not mean they won't do their professional duty AND does not specifically mean in this case that they are pro-illegal immigration. Perhaps they have an issue not with the spirit of the law but purely with its method of enforcement or legal text. This sets a dangerous presentment, many states have AGs which are a different political party from the governor and these AGs have personal opinions about various political and law issues which undoubtedly at some points are in conflict with the state and federal law. You cannot possibly expect ANYONE in government to have their personal opinions being completely inline with the letter of the law, under the same logic which the Arizona Governor has done this again could be done with ANY politician or person.

And until, UNTIL, the Arizona AG takes an action which is not in line with his oath to uphold the law then NO breach has been committed and no punishment may be taken. This is not the same as a conflict of interest where a Judge may own a large stake in a company which is currently on trail and may lose some of that investment if the trial goes badly, because its about personal political opinion. Someone at the level of a state's AG is expected, like any politician, to have opinions on every issue, which may not always line up with the letter of the law.

So what do we do with all those police officers who don't like this new law? Do we fire them all, or only allow part of the police force to enforce the law?

Or what about the current Arizona governor, who at one point campaign to overturn a conceal carry law which required a license to do so? How could we have trusted her to enforce and support the old law while it still existed, it was still law until it was changed and therefore must be enforced regardless of one's personal opinion correct?

Or what about the judges in those states which now allow gay marriage, many of them rendered opinions that laws against gay marriage were legal but now those decisions have been overturned. Should we not therefore remove all those judges because cannot trust them to enforce and judge law correctly because their old decisions are not in line with the current law? Should we not also remove the Supreme Court justices who voted in the dissenting opinion? Clearly their opinion isn't in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court, how can we trust them to act on that case as precedent in the future?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal i

Since when does a disagreement of opinion constitute a conflict of interest? I just watched the Corbert Report and saw the governor of New Mexico talking about how he wants to legalize marijuana in his state. Such we remove that governor because we can no longer trust him to enforce drug laws because he's come out against some of them?

Same thing with this law, simply because someone is personally against it does not mean they won't do their professional duty AND does not specifically mean in this case that they are pro-illegal immigration. Perhaps they have an issue not with the spirit of the law but purely with its method of enforcement or legal text. This sets a dangerous presentment, many states have AGs which are a different political party from the governor and these AGs have personal opinions about various political and law issues which undoubtedly at some points are in conflict with the state and federal law. You cannot possibly expect ANYONE in government to have their personal opinions being completely inline with the letter of the law, under the same logic which the Arizona Governor has done this again could be done with ANY politician or person.

And until, UNTIL, the Arizona AG takes an action which is not in line with his oath to uphold the law then NO breach has been committed and no punishment may be taken. This is not the same as a conflict of interest where a Judge may own a large stake in a company which is currently on trail and may lose some of that investment if the trial goes badly, because its about personal political opinion. Someone at the level of a state's AG is expected, like any politician, to have opinions on every issue, which may not always line up with the letter of the law.

So what do we do with all those police officers who don't like this new law? Do we fire them all, or only allow part of the police force to enforce the law?

Or what about the current Arizona governor, who at one point campaign to overturn a conceal carry law which required a license to do so? How could we have trusted her to enforce and support the old law while it still existed, it was still law until it was changed and therefore must be enforced regardless of one's personal opinion correct?

Or what about the judges in those states which now allow gay marriage, many of them rendered opinions that laws against gay marriage were legal but now those decisions have been overturned. Should we not therefore remove all those judges because cannot trust them to enforce and judge law correctly because their old decisions are not in line with the current law? Should we not also remove the Supreme Court justices who voted in the dissenting opinion? Clearly their opinion isn't in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court, how can we trust them to act on that case as precedent in the future?
Again, this is not about being from a different political party, nor is it about disagreeing with the law. It's about the fact that the person who is supposed to be arguing that the law is constitutional is holding press conferences with opposing counsel, who is arguing that it's not constitutional. That's it.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,550
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal i

And like I said, EVERYONE DOES THAT. You think every judge, attorney, politician, police officer, anyone who has anything to do with law agrees with the law in its entirety? One's personal opinion on the law is meaningless, its entirely about what side of the argument you are on. I dont think there's a single doubt the shoe bomber's lawyers didn't support terrorism and thought their client was guilty as all hell, but it didn't matter. You think they went around trying to find guys who supported terrorism and believed their client was innocent? Course not, because as professionals they are expected to argue the side they are placed on. Just as a state AG is expected to argue the state's law regardless of their personal opinion, its been a characteristic of common law since before the United States was even a country.

Its not the place of a lawyer to decide or even care about the innocence or guilty of his client, thats the judge's responsibility, its the lawyer's job to represent their client's interests, thats it.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal i

And like I said, EVERYONE DOES THAT. You think every judge, attorney, politician, police officer, anyone who has anything to do with law agrees with the law in its entirety? One's personal opinion on the law is meaningless, its entirely about what side of the argument you are on. I dont think there's a single doubt the shoe bomber's lawyers didn't support terrorism and thought their client was guilty as all hell, but it didn't matter. You think they went around trying to find guys who supported terrorism and believed their client was innocent? Course not, because as professionals they are expected to argue the side they are placed on. Just as a state AG is expected to argue the state's law regardless of their personal opinion, its been a characteristic of common law since before the United States was even a country.

Its not the place of a lawyer to decide or even care about the innocence or guilty of his client, thats the judge's responsibility, its the lawyer's job to represent their client's interests, thats it.
You're really not hearing me. Do you have links to other instances where an AG came out against his state's law and held press conferences with opposing counsel? Because of the role that the AG plays, this is very different from a police officer or politician opposing a law. Because of what the AG has done, that's different from defending a terrorist while still opposing terror.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,550
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal i

You're really not hearing me. Do you have links to other instances where an AG came out against his state's law and held press conferences with opposing counsel? Because of the role that the AG plays, this is very different from a police officer or politician opposing a law. Because of what the AG has done, that's different from defending a terrorist while still opposing terror.
I honestly have no idea where or if thats happened, I wouldnt doubt that it has and I don't disagree that its highly inappriopiate but I dont think this is an appropiate action on part of the goveroner. But the press conference only makes public what everyone knows, the man has a political opinion, and its one that could have been easily inferred from his past political history, outside of the AG office Lastly, the guy is currently running for governor so I think he has the right to make his opinions on current issues in Arizona, including this new law, public as well as be very vocal about them.
 

cholla

Active member
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
316
Reaction score
92
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal i

I honestly have no idea where or if thats happened, I wouldnt doubt that it has and I don't disagree that its highly inappriopiate but I dont think this is an appropiate action on part of the goveroner. But the press conference only makes public what everyone knows, the man has a political opinion, and its one that could have been easily inferred from his past political history, outside of the AG office Lastly, the guy is currently running for governor so I think he has the right to make his opinions on current issues in Arizona, including this new law, public as well as be very vocal about them.
Then he should be required to resign his position and then run for office, at the very least, he should recuse himself from this. Using a high profile case, such as this one, as a platform in his bid for gov. is unethical at best.

You remember that JD Hayworth was required to quit his radio job when he announced that he was running for senator, because he was in the public eye disproportionatly, this is the same issue.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
23,957
Reaction score
8,649
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer abruptly suspends state's attorney general from illegal i

Heard on the news (didn't catch the bill #), that a law was passed prior to SB1070 that gave the govenor the authority to select a lawyer for certain issues. If true, this in a non issue imo.
 
Top Bottom