Kane made correct decision
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Monday, July 29, 2013, 12:01 a.m.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane made the right legal and ethical decision not to defend Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Critics who say Attorney General Kane made her decision based on politics, rather than law, are just flat-out wrong. Both the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, which provides for the roles and responsibilities of the attorney general, and the state Rules of Professional Conduct make it clear that Kane had a responsibility to decline to defend DOMA.
Kane's critics say the attorney general cannot issue opinions on constitutionality but the Commonwealth Attorneys Act specifically allows the attorney general to provide her legal opinion on the constitutionality of legislation. And Kane rightly made the determination that our DOMA law is unconstitutional.
Given her legal opinion that DOMA is unconstitutional, Kane had the ethical responsibility, under the Rules of Professional Conduct, to decline to represent the commonwealth in defending it.
I'll also note that Rule 1.16 of the Rules of Professional Conduct states that “a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if … the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement.”
The law is on the side of Attorney General Kane. And, perhaps more importantly, she is on the right side of history.
The writer, an attorney, represents the 33rd State House District and is the House Democratic Leader.
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.
- Bloomberg & coal
- Knives vs. guns II
- Knives vs. guns I
- Resurrection? Yes, really
- ‘Son of God’
- Consequences in space
- Valley musical superb
- Dingell’s lesson
- Tragedy’s ramifications III
- Tragedy sensationalized
- Parental dysfunction