As opposed to many of the inane comment @ PoliticsPa, this article and the input of Henry Tate merit serious analysis; the latter was accomplished ~1 month ago and, thus, the former will now be tackled.
1. It is proposed that the AG-office petition the Supremes to change their minds; absent the ability to submit new info that would resonate legally, such an initiative would likely fail.
2. It is claimed that the current procedure flips the customary “house indicts, senate convicts” model of impeachment; in my view, the former role was played by the Special Committee, while the latter effort will be concluded—providing due process—expeditiously and comprehensively.
3. A fair reading of the Report debunks the narrative that this process is based upon a faulty reading of an “obscure clause added to the Pennsylvania constitution in the nineteenth century intended to remove mentally impaired or senile office holders”; the lingo is applicable to the instant case, and no other intervening statute exists that would block its being invoked.
4. In light of their testimony, it’s unlikely the four-aides would cogently reverse-course and argue that her remaining in office would allow for business-as-usual to supervene; rather, they have already claimed otherwise [portending problems promise to worsen, geometically].
5. Agreeing with the PSU-reference [“The political firestorm against Attorney General Kane smacks of the earlier Joe Paterno / Penn State / Louis Freeh fiasco, where pre-supposed political conclusions were used as justifications for quick and careless actions, resulting in the destruction of careers and reputations, before all the evidence had come in.”] doesn’t allow for a comparable conclusion to be drawn; Corbett was culpable [in my view] regarding what happened a half-decade ago, whereas it can be anticipated that the Special Committee will afford AG-Kane her due process “fairness” rights, rigorously.
6. An important “distinction with a difference” must be articulated, for it is untrue that the Supremes “improperly intervened in its own legal and disciplinary mechanisms and procedures of due process, and in so doing also prejudiced and jeopardized Kane’s right to a fair trial by a jury of her peers”; rather, nothing done judicially regarding professional licensure has any impact upon the pending criminal matter.
7. Also, agreeing with the current state-of-affairs [“The supreme court’s reckless suspension of Kane’s law license not only has seriously and unfairly harmed her, but it clearly also obstructs the Office of Attorney General from performing other important tasks, and further puts all Pennsylvanians at risk.”] supports the need for her early departure; the four aides detailed their feverish efforts to preclude a catastrophe directly related to the unavoidable vacuum at-the-top.
8. Similarly, the incorrect historical claim [“When this same procedure was last attempted and failed in the 19th century, it was clearly stated that it was the responsibility of the state attorney general to properly decide the constitutionality of this legislative maneuver.”] is predicated on the false assumption that the precedent [in which the criminal charges in Philly were to have been adjudicated in Harrisburg] is applicable; her guilt is not at-issue when, actually, the focus is trained upon proper function of government.
9. It is ironic that it is claimed [“The Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General has a primary responsibility to uphold and enforce the state constitution, on behalf of our public, to ensure that no powers are unlawfully usurped, or rights trampled.”] when, prior to the June decision by the SCOTUS, AG-Kane failed to uphold PA’s marriage law; thus, defending her tenure is a tenuous proposition.
10. This essay calls for AG-Kane [again] to violate a court-order precluding her from firing those with whom she harbors political disagreement [“If Deputy AG Beemer, now the top licensed attorney in the office, cannot or will not perform the job now required to credibly meet these important constitutional demands in court, he should be replaced with one who can.”]; thus, her inability to depend upon her chief-deputy to be able to sign-on with any such legal challenge speaks volumes regarding any presume legitimacy others would want to imbue.
Absent a cogent essay refuting the underpinnings of the Special Committee’s Report, the above floats into hyperspace; AG-Kane is in trouble due to her own political elitism, and the “chickens” are rapidly returning to “roost.”
