Published: Saturday, Aug. 10, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
State Attorney General Kathleen Kane has the sorry distinction of having volunteered to the world that she got through law school without understanding the three branches of government.
She ran for and won an office in the executive branch, where her job is to defend and enforce state law. Now she tells us she can't do that because she has a personal problem with a law she is supposed to defend. Wouldn't you love to have her as your lawyer if she decided that she didn't like your looks?
If she wanted to decide what laws to enforce or defend, she should have run for an office in the legislative branch. If she wanted to weigh in on the constitutionality of a law, she should have run for an office in the judicial branch. The recherché exculpatory stuff is completely beside the point; her personal feelings are irrelevant; her ability is all that matters.
She must have gone to the Eric Holder School of Law.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ObamaCare Obamination
- Maybe problem is kids
- Menace unaddressed
- Failing patients & public
- Choosing judges I
- Choosing judges II
- Fuel tax increase
- Us & them
- Zubik is right
- Promotion questionable
- ‘Knockout’ evil