Ya think?
From the Virginian-Pilot:
Charitably, McDonnell’s explanation is incomplete. Uncharitably, it’s advocacy for the amendment, which he championed as a member of the House of Delegates. Given the explanations coming from his office, Virginians would be wise to view McDonnell’s explanation most uncharitably.
Again, Virginia law requires that the explanation “shall be in plain English, shall be limited to a neutral explanation, which may include a brief statement on the effect of a ‘yes’ and ‘no’ vote on the question but shall not include arguments submitted by either proponents or opponents of the proposal.”
Given the content of his opinion, it’ll take some serious logical, legal and linguistic gymnastics for any judge to reach the conclusion that McDonnell’s opinion squares with any part of that state code.
Since the only rationale provided for the Marshall-Newman Amendment in the first place is the notion of “activist judges,” gymnastics doesn’t really sound like the activity McDonnell ought to be encouraging. But maybe that’s just me.
McDonnell’s bias shows in legal advice
Ya think?
From the Virginian-Pilot:
Again, Virginia law requires that the explanation “shall be in plain English, shall be limited to a neutral explanation, which may include a brief statement on the effect of a ‘yes’ and ‘no’ vote on the question but shall not include arguments submitted by either proponents or opponents of the proposal.”
Since the only rationale provided for the Marshall-Newman Amendment in the first place is the notion of “activist judges,” gymnastics doesn’t really sound like the activity McDonnell ought to be encouraging. But maybe that’s just me.