Really, AG Kane Must Go

When Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane refused to defend the commonwealth's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) I called for her impeachment in a previous blog (Do Your Duty or Resign AG Kane, 7/11/13).  Since that time she has made it eminently clear that she is unqualified for the post. 

As a reminder, the Commonwealth Attorneys Act of 1980 (Ch2, Section 204 (3) reads: It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to uphold and defend the constitutionality of all statutes so as to prevent their suspension or abrogation in the absence of a controlling decision by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Attorney General doesn't get to choose which laws she will defend or obey and which she can take a politically correct position on.  She is not to judge whether the General Assembly passed an unconstitutional law.  In the DOMA case she presumed the court's position before the case has even begun.  Her job, her duty, is to defend her client, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to the best of her ability.

Following that unchallenged abrogation of her duty she again has refused to defend a state law.  This time it is a law that makes it easier for gun owners and member groups to sue local municipalities.  Some local municipalities have passed ordinances in defiance of state law that place stricter requirements on gun ownership.  The General Assembly does not give local municipalities this authority and specifically reserves that power to itself.  Some local municipalities have passed these ordinances in defiance of the state law because there has been no mechanism in place to object or overturn them.  There has been no recourse for gun-owners intimidated (the real purpose of the laws) by the local ordinances.

Some cities (of course Pittsburgh and Philadelphia) and several state lawmakers brought a lawsuit against the Commonwealth November 10th, challenging that the law wasn't passed in accordance with parts of the state constitution designed to create transparent, fair legislation (i.e., one subject bills).  Note that the suit does not challenge the purpose or content of the law.  Everyone understands the General Assembly is exercising its rights on gun legislation and that local municipalities are out of bounds when they seek to restrict gun-rights.  AG Kane is obviously hiding behind a procedural issue.

Defending the process by which legislation was passed - which is what she would be called to do in this lawsuit - should be no burden for any ethical and right thinking attorney general.  Lawyers  routinely make arguments in court over procedural matters in cases where they may have doubts about their client's position.  Just like the DOMA case she has taken on the position of judge and is derelict in her duties as Attorney General!

These two derelictions of duty are enough to impeach AG Kane.  However, she gives another great reason: total incompetence.  Kane refused to prosecute Philadelphia lawmakers who took cash (recorded on tape!) from an undercover lobbyist and an ex-traffic court judge who accepted a $2,000 bracelet.  She claimed racism tinged her predecessors' investigation and that there were legal flaws and poor supervision.  Well, a grand jury, dominated by black citizens, have rebuked her on the racism charge and the evidence of the case is unusually damning based on eyewitness accounts, hours of tape recordings and detailed admissions of guilt.  Some observers believe her actions were all motivated by a feud she has with the former state prosecutor and current Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams.  Based on the grand jury's findings he is charging the state legislators in the case.

Further evidence of incompetence: Kane flubbed, and then retracted, two statements about her office's investigation of pornographic emails shared by former and current staffers.  Her review of Governor Corbett's almost 3-year investigation while he was attorney general of pedophile Jerry Sandusky, a retired Penn State assistant football coach, found no evidence that Corbett dragged out the investigation to win the governor's office, as Kane alleged in her campaign.  Then her office settled the last of cases involving eight people with ties to the Turnpike Commission whom Kane accused of corruption. Two months before taking office she had a grand press conference accusing the people of "using the turnpike to line their pockets and to influence elections."  The result - none of those charged went to prison.

The office of Attorney General is no place for an incompetent politician motivated by political correctness and personal agendas.  Pennsylvania deserves an honorable, dedicated to the law, attorney general.  The General Assembly needs to do its duty and impeach AG Kane.