Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

The “Cooch’s” Curious Circle

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Want to see how Virginia’s hard right conservatives operate? Follow the circle.
Del. Robert G. Marshall, a Prince William County Republican and a staunch social conservative, sets his social media a Twitter and before you know it, he has asked his dogmatic kinsman, Atty. Gen. Kenneth Cuccinelli, for a legal opinion on an issue that could come off a check-the-box list from Liberty or Regent University.
Arizona’s racist anti-illegal immigration law gets slammed by a federal judge. Marshall tweets “the Cooch” who comes out with an opinion that in the Old Dominion, law enforcement can stop and question anybody they think might be undocumented. No matter that being undocumented is not a criminal violation of federal law which has jurisdiction here. It is a civil matter.
Finally want to stick it to Roe V. Wade? Marshall asks the “Cooch” for a legal opinion on whether outpatient abortion clinics should have the same standards as full-service hospitals that handle just about everything from the common cold to coronary bypasses. If fully implemented, Cuccinelli’s ruling could shut down 17 out of 21 abortion clinics. He’s been trying to do that for all those years he was a legislator.
Want to clear the state for Nativity scenes at fire stations even though it is still August? That’s foremost on Marshall’s mind so he asks the “Cooch” who says that Christmas displays are just fine on public property as long as other faiths have access, too.
Reactions are mixed. The ACLU advises all to ignore Cuccinelli’s immigrant opinion but they are OK with the Christmas thing.
One wonders, what is next? Mandatory church services on Sundays?
Peter Galuszka

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

24 responses to “The “Cooch’s” Curious Circle”

  1. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I often say that liberals can't see the forest for the trees. In this case they can't see the trees for the bark.

    For Democrats, the cold winds of November will blow early this year. On November 2 to be exact.

    Many are watching the races for US Congress. While this is certainly important it is not the only important matter to be decided this November.

    Unlike Virginia, most states elect their representatives on the same cycle as the national elections. I'd advise people to watch the elections in the states this November.

    Cuccinelli is just a harbinger of things to come.

    The real battle isn't over Obamacare or abortion or global warming / climate change.

    The real battle is over the 10th Amendment.

    Republicans and Democrats have been working feverishly since FDR to incoporate more and more power in the federal government.

    Obama has taken that effort to new levels by using the Treasury's printing presses in an effort to redact the parts of the US Constitution that he (and other statists) don't like.

    The blowback is coming.

    Obama is largely seen as a good man who just doesn'thave the experience for the job. The US Congress, however, is seen as almost pure evil and corruption. In combination, the people's confidence in our national government is shattered.

    Where to turn?

    The states, of course.

    Cuccinelli will be seen as the pioneer in the emerging battle for the 10th Amendment or states' rights or whatever it ends up being called.

    As I've written before … you are looking at tomorrow's Winston Churchill. He's a visionary – far ahead of his time (OK, well a year ahead).

    All Hail the Cooch!

  2. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Groveton,
    Cooch as Winnie? That's downright precious! You are at your blogging best when you turn on the humor.

    Congrats!

    Peter Galuszka

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    No comments on the regulation of abortion clinics or holiday displays, but Justice William Brennan, a liberal icon, wrote in Plyler v. Doe (1982), "Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State’s economy generally, or the State’s ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation’s borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns."

    I don't know how the federal judge in Arizona squares her opinion with that of the Supreme Court.

    TMT

  4. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Well..it used to be with Conservatives – only a year or two ago – that the Constitution was inviolate and the enemy was judges who "interpret" and "make law with their decisions".

    Now – Pandora is running amok..forget the box

    O'Reilly got it right.

    It's a culture war.

    The Constitution will remain the inviolate document – for the things the conservatives want to remain – inviolate

    but for the stuff they don't like …you know those pesky amendments and less than clear passages about "arms" and "militia" and stuff… …

    Katy bar the door

    The "movement" has become the national cultural equivalent of Jury Nullification – Constitution Nullification.

    If it's "wrong".. it's "wrong" and if the Constitution has to be changed to fix it – so be it.

    the next few years are going to be interesting and I have a prediction.

    It will not be a happy time for Conservatives….

    they dislike blacks, Hispanics and now Muslims.

    they headed for angry white man oblivion…

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Peter,

    Amazing how extreme you are. Why anyone would think that clinics that perform abortions shouldn't have to abide by the same regulations as hospitals for cleanliness is beyond me.

    As you say, the ACLU agrees with "the Cooch".

    Your racist immigration views get more extreme every day Peter.

  6. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Interesting article on Cuccinelli's recent opinion about holiday displays …

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/08/post_692.html

    The usual liberal moonbats are howling.

    However, the ACLU has a different take:

    "Kent Willis, executive director of the Virginia branch of the ACLU, described Cuccinelli's opinion as "accurate." He said localities can ban all displays, including those that are religious, or allow all displays.".

    So, Cuccinelli was asked a question and provided an answer. The liberals are howling about that evil AG Ken Cuccinelli. Unfortunately for the liberals, Cuccinelli is asked to provide opinions about the legality of various laws and regulations. More unfortunately for liberals, it seems that his opinions are, well, "accurate".

    Liberals have been deliberately and intentionally misinterpreting the US Constitution and other legal documents for years. The "separation of chuch and state" zealots want you to believe that the US Constitution or Virginia Constitution requires the ban of religious displays on public facilities. They are wrong. In fact, they know they are wrong. So, when confronted with reality … they don't argue the facts or logic, they play the ancient game of "shoot the messenger".

    Kudos to the ACLU for integrity and honesty on this.

    As for the faux constitution so beloved by liberals …

    Tick tock, tick tock.

    Imagine dozens of new Ken Cuccinellis in dozens of other states. All of them slapping down the constitutional abuses perpetuated by both uber – liberals and uber – conservatives over the years.

    Winston Spenser Cuccinelli for emperor.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I always thought diversity was about inclusion and not exclusion. I've been to international nights at several Fairfax County Public Schools and have enjoyed tasting new foods and learning about different countries' holidays and traditions.

    I don't often agree with the ACLU, but its opinion that government can either exclude all or include all seems consistent with what I learned about the First Amendment years ago.

    TMT

  8. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I would posit that most Conservatives don't know their head from a hole in the ground when it comes to many issues in the Constitution whereas the ACLU almost always has it right.

    The deal with religious displays is if you allow one – you have to allow ALL and that includes Wikens and other Heinz 57 varieties and when most folks find this out, especially those who fancy themselves as Constitutional scholarly types – they object to any religion other than the "only true religion".

    After it is "discovered" that if you allow one, you must allow them all… they usually change their minds because – despite what many Conservatives say – they are NOT inclusive and do not like the idea that the world is more diverse than they'd prefer.

    It's a curse of narrow mindedness.. by far not the sole province of conservatives but very well represented.

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry, I agree that some number of conservatives would blanch at the idea of really allowing everyone in. But there are also many liberals that will take the same approach. A minority religion is cultural. Christianity is oppressive and must be restrained. We need one set of rules that apply to everyone. All means all, and none means none.

    My problem with the ACLU is that it has often argued that the Consitution requires spending on this or that.

    TMT

  10. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    well the ACLU is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but here is what they do – despite those that claim they are opposed to religion:

    " The ACLU vigorously defends the rights of all Americans to practice their religion. But because the ACLU is often better known for its work preventing the government from promoting and funding selected religious activities, it is sometimes wrongly assumed that the ACLU does not zealously defend the rights of all religious believers to practice their faith. "

    http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression

    the problem that we have right now – is there are significant numbers of Conservatives who would have Christianity and Judaism given special treatment over Islam and other religions -no matter what the Constitution says and they condemn the ACLU's role in defending all religions –

    and if they could – they'd change the Constitution to make that happen.

  11. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Back to first principles …

    The original article was a critique of Cuccinelli as Attorney General.

    Was his opinion in regard to the holiday displays right or wrong?

    Was it accurate?

    I think it was. So does the ACLU.

    So … I am more than a little confused as to why the moonbats are howling.

    Either people are suffering from Cuccinelli Derangement Syndrome (quite possible) or they are frustrated that Virginia now has an Attorney General who actually believes in the constitutions – US and Virginia.

    Which is it?

    When he opined that the GMU gun ban was constitutional the conservatives griped.

    What, exactly, is your complaint about Ken Cuccinelli?

  12. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    As an aside ….

    I think TMT was 100% correct in asserting that the federal judge who blocked the Arizona law was intentionally ignoring a very clear US Supreme Court precedent.

    In fact, I'd be willing to bet a beer that Cuccinelli will u;timately be proven right with his interpretation of a state's right to enforce immigration law.

    So far, the only decision which Cuccinelli has clearly gotten wrong was his assertion that Virginia colleges and universities lack the enabling legislation from the General Assembly to write policies forbidding discrimination against gays.

    Ole Gerry Baliles had that one right:

    http://virginiatomorrow.com/2010/03/12/baliles-v-cuccinelli/

    And, contrary to the "Groveton hates all Democrats drivel, I sure do miss Gov. Baliles:

    http://grovetonsvirginia.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/gerald-l-baliles/

  13. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I don't know about the moonbats but I'm pretty consistent in seeing the ACLU true to the principles of the constitution no matter if the moonbats or tea pots or right-wings oxes get gored.

    I don't really have a problem with Cooch per se other than he's clearly a hugely partisan challenger to things he things need to be pushed back.

    At some point, the question becomes, is he grooming himself to be leader who can govern Va or is he destined for yet another right-wing media gig to smooch the likes of Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich.

    I note that Cooch is "scheduled to appear" at:

    Virginia Tea Party Patriots Convention

    along with George Allen, Dick Morris and Lou Dobbs.

    http://www.vateapartyconvention.com/

  14. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    The problem with Arizona.

    Arizona claims that the Feds are not doing their job.

    But Arizona is wrong.

    Clearly there is a govt organization whose mission is immigration and who have substantial resources and who are accomplishing significant progress on the issue.

    What Arizona is saying is that they don't like the way the Feds are doing it nor the results.

    Well hells bells.. you could make that claim about anything the Feds do from Monetary Policy to Fannie Mae to Iraq and Education.

    Are you going to file a lawsuit every time you disagree with what the EPA or FDA or NTSB does?

    Are you going to sue the Feds because you don't like the way that FHWA does interstates?

    what exactly is the basis for the Arizona lawsuit to start with?

    It's not that the Feds are doing nothing – nope.

    They're doing much but Arizona does not like what they are doing or the results.

    that's what this lawsuit is going to boil down to IMHO.

    Don't like DOD designing $600 toilet seats – SUE THEM!

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    States suing the feds. Let's go back a few years when a number states sued the EPA to force it to regulate greenhouse gases. They didn't like the Bush Administration's policies. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/27/tech/main1553669.shtml

    Larry, these things are done all the time. Liberals sue conservatives. Conservatives sue liberals. Now all we need are for the judges to try to follow the laws.

    TMT

  16. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    TMT – if the law says that the EPA is supposed to regulate and they do not – that's a specific failure to follow the explicit direction of the law.

    But that's not the same as regulating but in a way you disagree with.

    Lawsuits from Citizens, Environmental Groups an Industry Groups occur all the time but they are specifically addressing the law not how the job is being done.

    To follow your analogy, the Environmental Groups would therefore sue the EPA because they are not doing their regulation the way that the Env Group thinks it should be done – as opposed to actually violating the law.

    What Arizona is suing on – is not the law – but the performance of the Fed as not good enough in their eyes.

    It's an idiotic concept IMHO.

    If this was an environmental or other interest group suing on that basis – they get thrown out of court…

    it would be dismissed WITH PREJUDICE

    That's the problem with the country now days.

    People do not even understand the difference between the law – and govt performance.

    You cannot force the govt – the Feds, the State or the Local to perform the way you want them to – with a lawsuit.

    You do that with elections.

    The Courts are not substitutes for elections.

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry, you have Arizona backwards. Arizona is not suing the United States. The United States is suing Arizona. The argument is that Arizona law interferes with federal law on immigration and is, therefore, preempted.

    But the United States Supreme Court held that states have authority to deter illegal immigration. Justice is supposed to be blind, but here it seems that the judge closed her eyes to what the Supreme Court said. I suspect that, when the Supreme Court finally decides the case, Arizona will likely be the winner.

    The feds (both the Bush and Obama administrations) could have done and, in the case of the Obama administration, could do a lot more to enforce the law. It could make E-Verify mandatory. It could audit government contractors and require state and local government receiving federal money to audit their contractors.

    Liberals have long argued for going after employers. Vigorous enforcement and big fines will dry up jobs for illegals. Maybe they didn't really mean it.

    TMT

  18. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I did get it backwards.

    but the premise is the same – that Arizona does not like the way the Feds are performing the role – as opposed to the Feds breaking the law or not following the law.

    Again – if that is the basis for what Arizona did – then they could take that position on just about anything the Feds do.

    They could, for instance, disagree with the way the Feds sets standards for Interstates or Airport Security or drug enforcement, etc.

    Does Arizona really think the Feds are going to start stopping cars – across the country – trying to find illegals?

    Do you think the average person would like the idea of State Troopers randomly pulling people over to check their papers?

    Again – it's not like the Obama administration is NOT doing immigration enforcement.

    They are – and the numbers deported are higher than previous administrations AS WELL AS employer audits.

    This is not about Conservative or Liberals unless what you want is to force the govt to do what Conservatives want done no matter what others think.

    That's the flavor I get now days.

    "Do it our way or we'll raise hell about it…"

    temper tantrum politics

  19. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    I think I'll put an ad in the paper – hay Humpers wanted 10$ an hour or 25 cents per bale – must be Republican. Long hours, no benefits.

  20. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    In support of TMT's thesis that both parties use backdoor methods to subvert the constitution.

    You have the right to bear arms but not the right to buy ammunition at a price anybody can afford.

    We need more states' rights.

    Go Cooch Go!

    http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/epa-reviewing-request-ban-led-bullets

  21. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    ha ha ha – yeah …the States Rights issue reminds me of NoVa and the Dillon Rule.

  22. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    so much for Cooch and the Constitution:

    " Judge rules against candidate barred from ballot"

    " Hudson upheld a motion filed by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to dismiss the suit brought by Herbert Lux and other Spotsylvania County residents.

    Lux, whose website describes him as an independent, filed the 1,000 signatures needed to qualify as a candidate, but many of them were gathered by Lux himself. The State Board of Elections denied the candidacy because it said Lux lived outside the district, contrary to the state law that applied to petition circulators."

    Judge rules against candidate barred from ballot

    so the way the law is written, the man can run in a district other than the one he lives in – but he cannot gather the signatures himself but has to find someone who lives in that district.

    And the "Cooch" supported the rule – which basically is a restriction set up originally to make it harder for non-party-affiliated citizens to run for office.

    and the "Cooch" supported the status quo that favored the two embedded political parties.

    I guess the Cooch is not such a challenger of the status quo after all, eh?

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry, it depends on what the statute says. Courts are supposed to follow statutes. If the legislature or Congress is clear in its language and the statute is not unconstitutional, the result ought to be whatever the legislature or Congress said.

    If the law says petition solicitors must live within the district where they are soliciting ballot signatures, apparently signatures solicited by someone who resides outside the district are invalid. That doesn't seem shocking to me. I don't want people from California or Maryland soliciting for signatures on Virginia issues.

    I've signed lots of ballot petitions for both Republicans and Democrats. So I'm not trying to keep anyone off a ballot.

    TMT

  24. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    TMT – yes but the guy was running for their district and was collecting signatures for is own candidacy.

    so he can legally run for that district but he cannot collect signatures for his own candidacy in the same district.

    how is that rational?

Leave a Reply

Read More