Now to the matter at hand–Its not a standard criminal case, you’re correct. But the same attorney client and conflict requirements exist for the AG in all cases. Mr. D–the Supreme Court invites all parties to submit briefs. Lockyer’s office submitted briefs last year. Brown said he would submit briefs this year in defense of the measure. Nothing changed except the politics.

Your analogy with Gitmo is off point. Tnere was no vote of the people to imprison people in Gitmo without due process. Purely executive action. The executive could unilaterally say, ” We changed our mind. Get out of jail free. Close down Gitmo.” Can’t do that with Prop 8. Brown has an obligation to defend the measure. If he thinkls its unconstitutional he can recuse himself and say he cant represent the State because he thinks the measure is unconstitutional and the State would hire other counsel as in any conflict case. Normally the State would pay for the conflict counsel. It would be ironic if liberals cheering on Jerry Brown’s actions get stuck paying part of Kenneth Star’s legal bills.

First off, I’d like to thank you for the mostly civil discussion we’ve all had in this thread. It’s not that often that I have to disagree with you & Chris, so I’m glad we’ve been able to keep this thread on the topic at hand. Now back to that topic…

This isn’t a standard criminal defense case. This is a civil rights case before the highest court in the state determining whether all people will actually be treated equally in California. Ultimately, the court will decide the legality of this initiative. In that respect, you’re right.

However, the court has always asked the Attorney General to weigh in on a case like this before the court, on the legality of an initiative being challenged. Should Brown have lied & said he thought Prop H8 is constitutional if his own legal analysis led him to conclude otherwise? How would that be proper, considering his primary duty is to protect & defend the state constitution, not whatever 52% of the voters agree to on any given election day?

There’s currently a case before the US Supreme Court regarding the status of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. It’s quite possible that the case won’t be heard until after Obama’s inauguration. So once it’s heard, should US AG Eric Holder defend keeping these detainees in legal limbo without a real court trial, let alone any conviction? I mean, when Bush instituted this, over 70% of Americans thought it was the right thing to do to keep the nation safe? Even if Holder doesn’t think it’s legal to keep these people imprisoned indefinitely without a proper trial, should he urge the court to rule in the government’s favor anyway because he’s now part of the government?

Am I making sense now? Just because something is temporarily popular doesn’t make it right. And just because something may be government policy doesn’t mean it’s constitutional. After CA AG Brown examined Prop H8, he found that it isn’t constitutional. So when the court asked him to weigh in, he gave his honest legal analysis.

I understand that Brown does not think the measure constitutional. But as I vave said ad nauseum, unless no reasonable attorney could conclude the measure was constitutional, Brown has an obligation to defend it. If he does not think the measure constitutional but reasonable attorneys could differ on the position(as here) he should defend it. But failing that, he should recuse himself and his office. Mr. prevatt was correct, he should not have filed the brief. It’s his position to offer legal advice to his client but the client decided to pass this measure and ignore his advice. It’s up to the Court to decide the constitutionality. Had not the Prop 8 people smelled a rat early on and applied for and were granted an opportunity to argue on behalf of the measure, there would be no representation. You may like that result but if the shoe was on the other foot you certainly would not.

“Let’s say Todd Spitzer was the AG”.

Question: Did AG Dan Lungren make sure an attorney from his office was assigned to defend Prop 215 in 1996? If not, then I agree with you that he improperly handled the case. But if he did ensure a state attorney would defend 215 in court even if he himself found it unconstitutional, then he didn’t act improperly… Even though I disagree with him on medical marijuana.

All state law requires is that the Attorney General’s office provide representation to support an initiative if challenged in court. But if the AG finds him/herself that the initiative is unconstitutional, then one must inform the court of one’s legal findings if the court asks the AG for his/her legal briefing on the initiative.

What does the Pope have to do with this? Last I checked, the Pope does not make public policy. The Pope can’t overrule genetics. The Pope can’t take people’s civil rights away. If the Pope doesn’t like same-sex marriage, then he doesn’t have to come to California to marry a man.

Chris-

Why not? If the Attorney General reviews the state constitution & concludes that Prop H8 can’t revise the constitution’s equal protection clause by a mere majority popular vote, shouldn’t he go to the court & submit his opinion? Last I checked, the court asked AG Brown for his conclusion on the legality of Prop H8. All Jerry Brown did was abide by the court’s request by submitting his briefing concluding that Prop H8 is unconstitutional.

Again, as both Misha & demmother commented upthread, the Attorney General’s chief responsibility is to protect & defend the constitution. So when the California Supreme Court asks the Attorney General to submit a briefing offering his honest view on the legality of an initiative, the Attorney General should give the court his honest legal assessment. That’s all Jerry Brown did.

Pope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.

“(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed,” the pontiff said in a holiday address to the Curia, the Vatican’s central administration.

“The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less.”

The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official called homosexuality “a deviation, an irregularity, a wound.”

The pope said humanity needed to “listen to the language of creation” to understand the intended roles of man and woman. He compared behavior beyond traditional heterosexual relations as “a destruction of God’s work.”

He needed to not be one of the people filing a brief in opposition, especially because of his position.