Is it any surprise to anyone who has been following politics for, oh, even just the last year, that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli was going to practice line-in-the-sand conservatism as a statewide elected official?
It shouldn’t.
Cuccinelli, as our chief law enforcement officer, is doing exactly what we expect out of an Attorney General and doing it well, particularly when it comes to healthcare, the EPA, and Arizona’s immigration laws.
As Steven Osborne correctly pointed out yesterday, Cuccinelli represents a large portion of Virginians who welcome his refreshing “bold color”-type approach to carrying out the duties his office.
The AG does not mince words and speaks with a refreshing clarity that is too often subjugated to political correctness.
In the past week, the general was in true form when commenting on both the rulings of the EPA with respect to climate data and a judge’s interpretation of Arizona’s immigration laws.
First, with respect to the EPA, the AG’s office was, as usual, to the point:
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has reviewed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s news release announcing its denial of Virginia’s and others’ rehearing petitions pending before the agency. When the Office of the Attorney General has fully reviewed the ruling, the attorney general will make an additional statement. One thing, however, is immediately apparent: The reviewing court is likely to find the decisions fatally flawed procedurally because the agency has reviewed and weighed new information without notice or comment from the public.
That statement is literally dripping with an inference that the EPA done gone too far with its stated powers – and that the information that goes into justifying its position is the result of pseudo-science.
The reality is that the EPA’s decision to severely limit CO2 emissions is on the basis of what is known as “post-normal” science. The agency bases it’s decision directly on an ICCC report that relies heavily on such “science.”
“Post-normal” science is a concept that the greater social needs (in their subjective view) outweigh any facts that might be gathered. Which is exactly what Cuccinelli is also claiming in the UVA case.
Second, while the Arizona case doesn’t have any bearing on Virginia law – yet – Cuccinelli is right to speak up for Virginians on the issue. As with healthcare and the EPA, Cuccinelli is continuing to stand-up against the Obama administration’s continuing assault on the 10th Amendment. It is clear the AG will not idly permit such expanse in federal powers and that he is at the ready to stand up for the right of the Commonwealth to enforce its laws:
“While some accounts have painted Judge Bolton’s preliminary injunction ruling as a complete defeat of Arizona’s efforts to protect its residents, a careful review of the order reveals that this greatly overstates the impact of the ruling. The ruling leaves intact the provisions of the law that prohibit local governments in Arizona from simply ignoring violations of federal immigration law. Certainly it is appropriate for Arizonans to demand that their local officials be mindful of and enforce the law. These provisions, which essentially prevent Arizona localities from becoming so-called ‘sanctuary cities,’ do just that,” said Cuccinelli.
“Judge Bolton upheld the provisions of the Arizona law that made it illegal to transport illegal aliens into Arizona, to conceal illegal aliens within Arizona, and to encourage or induce illegal aliens to live in Arizona. The court recognized that this was a proper subject of state regulation and that it did not impermissibly burden interstate commerce.
“At present, Judge Bolton’s ruling also leaves standing the provisions of the Arizona law regulating Arizona employers,” said Cuccinelli. Her ruling does not enjoin the portions of the Arizona law regarding the knowing or intentional employment of illegal aliens. “Coupled with the law’s requirements regarding verifying employment eligibility, the ruling regarding the employer provisions presently allows Arizona to protect its citizens by penalizing those who seek to profit from illegal immigration, while, at the same time, it reduces incentives for people to engage in illegal immigration in the first instance,” said Cuccinelli.
Cuccinelli concluded by emphasizing the preliminary nature of Judge Bolton’s ruling, stressing that the rulings made by the court, whether for the United States or for Arizona, are unlikely to be the last word. “Judge Bolton’s ruling was limited to the motion for a preliminary injunction and was not a final decision on the merits of the case. The ruling is only the first step in the process. I continue to hope that, ultimately, the courts will find Arizona’s effort to protect its citizens to be constitutional,” he said.
Bold colors indeed.
