I listened to him today during his news conference. He is enlightened and able
to realizer what is important. I'm impressed with him.
I would never vote for a candidate that openly declares that he will choose
which laws to defend (speaking of Amendment 3). I want to be confident that he
always represents the interests of the people in the state of Utah, especially
when a law was put forth through a statewide vote rather than the state
legislature. The AG is responsible to defend ALL Utah laws and if I can't
trust him to uphold the will of the people on this issue, how can I trust
he'll uphold laws about education or health care that he personally
doesn't like? It isn't his responsibility to determine if a law is
correct or not; we have a judicial branch that does that.
Sounds like a guy I'd vote for.--registered Republican
Two corrupt AGs in a row, followed by a "yes man". The AGs office is in
serious need of an overhaul.average_joe says:"The AG
is responsible to defend ALL Utah laws ..."Did you know that the
US Constitution is Utah's primary and ultimate law? You want the AG to
defend a local law that violates our primary law? When your rights have been
removed by a popular vote, get back with me. And so far, the judicial branch
HAS determined that the law is NOT correct. Over and over and over. How many
losses is enough before you admit that the law was wrong to begin with?
Go Stormont! I have talked to this man several times. He is absolutely
incredible and I am looking forward to voting for him.
The AG is sworn to defend Utah law. Regardless of my opinion on
SSM, what really troubles me is these civil servants who decide that their own
political or legal opinion matters more than their oath to defend tha law. The
reason the Prop 8 suit was dismissed by SCOTUS was simply because the correct
party to appeal - the Governor and AG of CA - did not defend the suit. They
were derelict in their duty and defied the very oath they took when sworn in!
The AGs personal opinions are irrelevant - it is his duty to defend
Ammendment 3 until it is either upheld to struck down. That is how the legal
process is supposed to work.Integrity used to matter in this world.
Now it is an "old fashioned" value. If people had more integrity we
would have a better world...
@RanchHandThe UTAH AG is a UTAH employee, not a federal one. I would
expect him to uphold laws passed by the UTAH Legislature. He is not paid to
interpret the US Constitution. Last time I checked, that was the US Supreme
Court's job, not the UTAH attorney general's.
@Ender,If the majority of Utah (or any other state in America) votes
to ban all guns and nullify all Mormon marriages, would that be OK too? Would
the AG be sworn to defend that? After all, it is the "will of the
The AG office needs a thorough meltdown and rebuild. Stormont is in a position
to do that. He has my vote.
Apparently this dude has not figured out that part of his oath of office would
be to defend the law. Not just the ones that he likes. If he doesn't like
the law he can try to change it through the legislature. Otherwise he's
obligated to defend the law. Even amendment 3.I won't be
voting for him unlike some of you, I don't consider his promise to not
defend a law that he doesn't like as particularly enlightened. Reyes knows what he's doing and Rome wasn't built in a day. To
correct the problems and attitudes at the AG's office will take some time.
I am a registered Republican but could see the corruption in the AG office.So, I have voted for every democrat AG for the past several years, due to
this.Not defending the state Constitution, and picking and choosing
laws, will cause me to finally vote for a Republican AG.I am not
sure someone from inside the office can clean up an office. I would fear that
corruption would not be found by an insider as they don't want to offend a
good old buddy that has worked next to them for years. If he were a whistle
blower I might consider him a viable candidate, but this is the first we have
heard from him. That is why Sean Reyes looks so good compared to
This new candidate, at least he came from outside the office.
About the AG defending the law: let's just say a state passed a law with
50.01% of the population voting to ban all guns; rifles, shotguns, paint ball
guns, water guns, whatever. How many of you world be for the AG defending that
state law? How many times should he appeal before he realizes he's fighting
@average_joe"It isn't his responsibility to determine if a
law is correct or not; we have a judicial branch that does that."You mean like laws against polygamy, child sex abuse (see polygamy). I guess
only Amendment 3 is the only law that is what you want defended? I
drove through Colorado City last month. There still seems to be a lot of
polygamy going on there. There are still pregnant 14-year-old girls there.
There are still marriages (although not legal ones) going on between children
and adults. I thought all of that was illegal. Am I wrong?
Omni scent - In your scenario, I would agree with an AG defending
that law. CHS 85 - My bisggest complaint about
Shurtleff was his refusal to enfforce polygamy laws because of the potential
burden on the State. That was not his concern IMOIntegrity does not
know political, religious, or social affiliations. I know atheists who display
great integrity, and I respect them immensely for it. I know members of my own
faith (LDS) who have none of it whatsoever....
To"FatherOfFour" first of all, the hypothetical laws you propose are
against the US constitution. You see, you cannot ban all guns. Washington DC
tried that, and found out the hard way that it is against the US Constitution.
As for voiding all LDS marriages, that can't happen either because of
marriage laws and you cannot have sex post facto Laws. You could creat laws
that say from a certain time forward that a certain group cannot perform
marriages that are recognized by the state, but that would be thrown out because
of US anti-discrimination laws that have made religion a protected class.To "CHS 85" recent rulings show that polygamy is not illegal as
long as you don't try to have more than one marriage recognized by the
government. When the UT DCFS finds out about child abuse, they do act and have
arrested people in the past.
"More needs to be done to restore confidence in A.G.'s office". . . Like prosecuting, trying, convicting, and sentencing the last two
AG's.But what are the chances of that?Slim to none?
@Redshirt1701,That was my point. When a law is found to be
unconstitutional (like banning all guns) it should not be defended. Eighteen
different federal judges have ruled that laws against Same Sex Marriage are
unconstitutional. Likewise you are right that the state could not lawfully
invalidate all Mormon marriages. Yet you support the state's decision to
not recognize the marriage of over 1300 couples performed legally here in Utah
and many others performed in other states. If each state gets to decide their
own marriage laws there will be many that choose to not recognize yours.
To "FatherOfFour" but your examples are in direct violation of the US
constitution. I have yet to find where marriage is a constitutional right. If
you go by what the constitution says, marriage is a States right. Since
marriage is a states right, that means that the state is the one who gets to
define it, not the Feds. In Utah, we complied with the 10th Ammendment and
declared what marriage is through Ammendment 3.The issue about
recognizing the 1300 couples is over. The courts have said that they should be
recognized. This case is to determine the future of marriage in Utah, and to a
larger extent the limits of the 10th Ammendment.
How many times does the State AG need to defend a law which has be struck down
at several levels?
ANY state’s AG’s office is supposed to defend the state and its
statutes. It is not for him to decide which laws he will defend and which he
will not. He has already proved himself unfit for the office.Ranchhand, Steve CottrellThe constitutionality has not been definitively
determined – and often the SCOTUS gets it wrong, as in the case of Dred
Scott and so many others. When the angry voices of the left are all that is
heard, the too-political SCOTUS will take that as an excuse to let good laws die
under the angry shouts of the left.omni scent,if that is what
the state law said – I’d expect the AG to defend it, while I worked
through my state rep and state senator to get the law changed.That
is the way it is SUPPOSED to work.Too bad dems consider themselves
above the law.But Stormont is correct, we need to restore integrity
in the AG’s office – so what is he doing to get holder removed?