Bob Marshall and Other Republicans Show their Extremism in Attacks on Mark Herring

Mark Herring (center) - October 12, 2013 at a fundraiser at our home.  Yours truly is at left and 1st Vice President of the Democrat Party of Virginia is at right.

The Christofascist/GOP rants and spittle flecked batshitery and hyperventilating continued today in the wake of Virginia Attorney General Mark Herrings decision to NOT defend Virginia's unconstitutional gay marriage bans. And in the process, the Christofascists and Republicans - who in my view make tawdry whores look virtuous in comparison - have shown the true level of their rank hypocrisy and disingenuousness. Moreover, they have shown their ignorance as to the ethical restrictions placed on attorneys. Surprisingly, one post on Bearing Drift supported Herring's actions. However, the blow back from the commentors shows the bankruptcy of today's conservationism. First, here are highlights from the supportive post on Bearing Drift:

There are some who claim Herring went beyond his reach in deciding the amendment conflicted with the federal constitution. I disagree. Herring’s oath (which Virginia Virtucon was kind enough to reproduce – albeit in a far different conclusion than my own) makes clear he has an obligation to both the Federal and the state constitutions. The question then becomes: which one should have priority? I would humbly submit that the answer is abundantly clear.

That leads to the next question: can Herring determine what parts of Virginia statute is (or isn’t) compatible with the federal constitution? I believe he is, and if this were a mere piece of legislation, there is precedent from previous (read: Republican) Attorneys General. While some would consider the state constitution to have more importance than legislation, I just don’t see it. Neither can stand up to the federal constitution, period.

Finally, what basis would Herring have for arguing (and this is an argument – the fellow actually deciding the issue is still a judge) that the state amendment would not pass federal muster? I would humbly submit the Supreme Court decision of 2013 – which did declare heterosexual-only marriage unconstitutional at a federal level – was ample evidence.

Of course, when one is a Christofascists or one of their servile political whores, logic, reason and even common decency do not matter.  Exhibit 1 of this hypocritical bullshit is Bob - a/k/a slideshow - Marshall, a man who has previously admitted to desiring to drive all gays from Virginia.  Blue Virginia reports on some of Marshall's over the top insanity:

A few classic quotes by "Sideshow Bob," responding to questions about Attorney General Mark Herring's (correct) decision that the Marshall-Newman/anti-gay-marriage amendment violates the U.S. constitution:

*Should Moses and Jesus apologize to anybody for affirming that marriage is between one man and one woman?"
*"I mean, who's Mark Herring, Louis XIV...Why didn't he tell everybody when he was running for office what he was doing, no he kept this very cleverly to himself and sprung this like a Pearl Harbor attack on the people of Virginia after he takes an oath to defend the constitution."
*"Let me tell you what's going on: Republicans for years now have been wanting to duck all these social issues, and their refusal to face up to this....their refusal to frame the issue in terms that the people understand the common good - because marriage is most essentially beneficial to the common good..."
*"Who gave [Mark Herring] the ability to become prince, prophet, and wordmaster? Nobody. This is a total act on his own effort to take power to himself."
*[Yelling at Christina Bellantoni, sitting in for Kojo Nnamdi as host of the show] "OH GET OFF IT, DON'T TELL ME THAT [Marshall's anti-gay-marriage amendment has created hardship for same-sex couples in Virginia]...you can do anything you want, [but] you can't pretend you're married if it's two guys." 

 In my view, Marshall belongs in an insane asylum.   But in addition to ignoring the reality that the U.S. Constitution overrides the Virginia Constitution. the hyperventilating Christofascists ignore Herring's duty as an attorney to not try to dupe and defraud the U.S. District Court.  This provision of the Virginia State Bar Code of Professional Responsibility makes this clear:

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal

    (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

        (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal;

        (2) fail to disclose a fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client, subject to Rule 1.6;

        (3) fail to disclose to the tribunal controlling legal authority in the subject jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

        (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.

Lastly, it is important to remember that right wing darling Ken Cuccinelli advocated for doing exactly what Herring has done.  Here are excerpts from Think Progress:

Herring’s description of his obligation is also absolutely correct. The oath of office for the Attorney General of Virginia — which Herring took earlier this month — includes a solemn vows first to “support the constitution of the United States” and second to support “the constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.” Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution makes clear that the federal constitution takes precedence over state constitutions — so when the two are in conflict, it is absolutely up to the Attorney General to make that decision. 

Moreover, two recent Republican Attorneys General of Virginia — both Family Foundation favorites who had the support of Howell and Marshall — also made clear that they would not defend what they believed to be unconstitutional. 

Herring’s immediate predecessor, Ken Cuccinelli II, also refused to defend laws he deemed unconstitutional. Last year, one of his spokesmen noted, “If the attorney general’s analysis shows that a law is unconstitutional, he has a legal obligation to not defend it.” Indeed in 2009, Cuccinelli himself said in a debate, “I will not defend what I, in my judgment, deem to be an unconstitutional law.” “If I determine it not to be constitutional,” he explained then, “I will not defend it. My first obligation is to the Constitution and the people of Virginia.” That pledge did not stop the Family Foundation and from frequently hosting Cuccinelli at events, accepting his sponsorship, and cheer-leading for his political career.

By refusing to continue the false and deceptive arguments of his predecessor Ken Cuccinelli and by laying out why existing case law precedent makes Virginia's gay marriage bans unconstitutional under the U. S. Constitution, Herring is in fact fulfilling his ethical duty.  And let's not forget that Herring's critics are the descendants of those who (i) supported slavery, (ii) supported segregation, (iii) supported "Massive Resistance, and (iv) bans on interracial marriage.  This reality needs to be thrown in the face of these critics by responsible journalists EVERYTIME this critics want to vent on a media outlet.