Yes, but...

This seems like the Republican threats of removing the filibuster back when they were in power. Imagine their horror if they didn't have that option now.

Legislatures should respond to general concerns, not the specifics of each case.

Yes. STJA nails it.

There should be two goals:

1) Defeat McKenna

2) Avoid making him look like a martyr.

In the video of the Gov's angry response to McKenna, she suggested that she may ask the AG's office to sue the AG. That may be an interesting approach.

What McKenna seeks here is publicity; and he wants to leverage this action to a call for change in the Government of WA State.

I agree that we shouldn't create specific laws for specific cases. But, the AG is the Counsel for the Governor and the Legislature; they can and should ask him to direct his energies in concert with theirs.

Couldn't he volunteer to defend his 50 comrades in the Michigan militias who were trying to slaughter Americans in terrorist attacks for Christ?

That would give him the America-hating right wing credentials he so desperately wants ...

"generally prohibit a Washington State attorney general from acting against the will of, say, the Washington State governor"

Terrible, terrible idea.

If you haven't seen this, McKenna on KCTS Connects: http://video.kcts9.org/video/1452477109

How about if we just vote against him next election cycle? That's the normal way of showing displeasure with the manner in which an elected official carries out the duties of their office.

@ w7ngman

I'm w/ you on that. I can easily imagine a reverse scenario, where a wingnut governor is forcing a progressive AG to engage in all kinds of heinous actions, like supporting an international child molesting gang (*cough* Catholic Church *cough* *cough*).

There's something called checks & balances, and that idea would be giving the dictatorship-lusting right wing a huge bone.

Of course, anyone who's taken Constitutional Law 101 knows that arguing the 10th Amendment is just peeing into gale-force winds. It's the Constitution's appendix: useless, and nothing will change once it's gone.

What @7 said. Just vote him out. The Governor shouldn't file a lawsuit or endorse specific legislation, but she should file a complaint with the State Bar, since the Attorney General is not zealously representing the Governor and the Insurance Commissioner as our State Constitution and the Supreme Court's Rules of Professional Conduct require.

You can submit questions now for a live chat Thursday with McKenna on the Seattle Times web site, if anybody is interested: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/flatpag…

thanks, Meq

Why stop the case? Obama, in pure 'W fashion, said to "bring it on!"
Regardless of its outcome, it is a needed excursion into constitutional law that America should go through and participate in its debate.

I'm proud of you SLOG.

The AG is elected in Washington. He answers to the voters. He shouldn't also answer to the Governer.

My guess is he's making a National play, not a State play. Where does McKenna live? What kind of Representatives do they vote for?

http://www.atg.wa.gov/page.aspx?ID=1730

http://reichert.house.gov/

I say we start a recall effort.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/La…