Woah. This is huge.

Take this teabagger down!

VAPORIZE HIM!

You go, 90 girls!

Also, McKenna should be added to the Men Who Look Like Old Lesbians blog.

@5 boo!

Phoebe! How uncouth of you.

Geez, instead of interfering with the operation of the state of Washington, why don't these bitchez just go get a job?

(And seriously? 7 people ahead of me and no one came up with get a job?)

@ 9 - I see what you did there....

"but whether the political dimensions of his office means McKenna is not fully subject to these rules, an issue that Washington's courts have never fully resolved. "

Seems to me we had some local elected judges make it legal and ok to lie in campaigns. That may be what the above quote is saying. I made a list of those judges to be sure to work to get them thrown out when they next come up for election.

unfortunately, the list is at home and I'm at work and I'll forget by then.

"but whether the political dimensions of his office means McKenna is not fully subject to these rules, an issue that Washington's courts have never fully resolved. "

I wonder if the author was referring to the little law that 5 elected judges passed to make it ok to lie in campaigns. I made a list of them to be sure to vote them out of office next time they were up for election. One is gone so far. Sorry the list is at home and I'm at work. By the time I get home, I'll have forgotten about getting that list so you can all vote them out as well.

Knoll Lowney is a blowhard publicity hound. McKenna is not these women's lawyer, so they have no basis for a complaint. Plus, the proper means of filing an ethics complaint is with the Bar Association, not in superior court.

This is a bullshit publicity stunt, perfectly in character for this moron.

Note to Jay Inslee: This would be a great time to remind people that you are an alternative to McKenna by, oh, I don't know, being in the public eye a little bit more. Just a thought...

@7 - really? I was speaking up for old lesbians!

I couldn't really tell you if it's merely a publicity stunt or not, but if it is, I guess shouting, "No fair," is a pretty effective response.

@17: You couldn't be more wrong. Read Article III, Section 21 of the State Constitution:

The attorney general shall be the legal adviser of the state officers, and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law.

I am not a state officer, are you?

And here are the laws prescribing the dutuies of the Attorney General (chapter 43.10 RCW). I'll save you some time by assuring you that those duties do not include taking on every person in the State as a client.

A couple thoughts: (1) Clients have multiple interests, not a single interest. So even if it is the State's interest to keep the non-mandate portions of the ACA, doing something contrary to that interest is not necessarily unethical because McKenna has to balance competing interests. He's explained that cost/resources are an important interest as well, and they are. By staying in the "group" of states, McKenna is saving money, which is another interest of the State. (2) On the misleading statements, I agree they are pretty finely parsed. But I don't know if the law requires the statements to be examined in a vacuum or if a more totality-of-the-circumstances test is used. Elsewhere, in other statements, McKenna has been more clear about what is going on with the severability issue. Does that mean the client (in other words, us folks) has been properly and ethically informed about the case, despite some possibly misleading omissions? Or are the omissions alone enough to get him in hot water. The Plaintiffs' ethics expert doesn't really get into that, but I'd like to hear what he has to say about it. More thoughts here: http://ziffblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/04…

A couple thoughts: (1) Clients have multiple interests, not a single interest. So even if it is the State's interest to keep the non-mandate portions of the ACA, doing something contrary to that interest is not necessarily unethical because McKenna has to balance competing interests. He's explained that cost/resources are an important interest as well, and they are. By staying in the "group" of states, McKenna is saving money, which is another interest of the State. (2) On the misleading statements, I agree they are pretty finely parsed. But I don't know if the law requires the statements to be examined in a vacuum or if a more totality-of-the-circumstances test is used. Elsewhere, in other statements, McKenna has been more clear about what is going on with the severability issue. Does that mean the client (in other words, us folks) has been properly and ethically informed about the case, despite some possibly misleading omissions? Or are the omissions alone enough to get him in hot water. The Plaintiffs' ethics expert doesn't really get into that, but I'd like to hear what he has to say about it. More thoughts here: http://ziffblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/04…