Imagine what the ad would say if she abdicated her duty?

The political columnist in the morning paper spent his customary column inches customarily defending a Democratic candidate — Catherine Cortez Masto in this case — against attacks from conservatives.

Catherine Cortez Masto (AP photo via USA Today)

The columnist goes on at considerable length to say Masto did not take quid from the taxi industry in order to wage quo against Uber, the ride sharing app. This claim is in an ad reportedly funded by the Koch brothers’ Freedom Partners Action Fund.

The columnist concludes she was just doing her job and a judge agreed with her, but he closed with this: “If she’d ignored the issue, she could have been accused of abdicating her duty. And can you imagine that attack ad?”

Does he mean like the time she abdicated her legal duty to sue to block ObamaCare when directed to do so by the governor?

NRS 228 states unequivocally:

“Whenever the Governor directs or when, in the opinion of the Attorney General, to protect and secure the interest of the State it is necessary that a suit be commenced or defended in any federal or state court, the Attorney General shall commence the action or make the defense.” (Emphasis added.)

The governor directed. If she believed such action was frivolous, she could have sought the advice of the courts. Instead, the state’s top lawyer simply ignored the law.

Another section of NRS 228 that might apply in such a situation:

“If the Attorney General neglects or refuses to perform any of the duties required of him or her bylaw, the Attorney General is guilty of a misdemeanor or is subject to removal from office.” (Again, emphasis added.)

Waiting for the ad.

By the way, though the columnist fails to mention it, Cortez Masto is running for Harry Reid’s senate seat against Republican Rep. Joe Heck and has been endorsed by uber-Democrat Reid.




One comment on “Imagine what the ad would say if she abdicated her duty?

  1. Steve says:

    Lets get this out of the way right off the bat.

    NRS 408.090  “Shall” and “may” construed.  “Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.

    (Added to NRS by 1957, 664)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s