More needs to be done to restore confidence in A.G.'s office, Democratic candidate says

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 26, 2014 3:24 p.m.

    ANY state’s AG’s office is supposed to defend the state and its statutes. It is not for him to decide which laws he will defend and which he will not. He has already proved himself unfit for the office.

    Ranchhand, Steve Cottrell
    The constitutionality has not been definitively determined – and often the SCOTUS gets it wrong, as in the case of Dred Scott and so many others. When the angry voices of the left are all that is heard, the too-political SCOTUS will take that as an excuse to let good laws die under the angry shouts of the left.

    omni scent,
    if that is what the state law said – I’d expect the AG to defend it, while I worked through my state rep and state senator to get the law changed.

    That is the way it is SUPPOSED to work.

    Too bad dems consider themselves above the law.

    But Stormont is correct, we need to restore integrity in the AG’s office – so what is he doing to get holder removed?

  • Steve Cottrell Centerville, UT
    June 26, 2014 2:49 p.m.

    How many times does the State AG need to defend a law which has be struck down at several levels?

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    June 26, 2014 2:03 p.m.

    To "FatherOfFour" but your examples are in direct violation of the US constitution. I have yet to find where marriage is a constitutional right. If you go by what the constitution says, marriage is a States right. Since marriage is a states right, that means that the state is the one who gets to define it, not the Feds. In Utah, we complied with the 10th Ammendment and declared what marriage is through Ammendment 3.

    The issue about recognizing the 1300 couples is over. The courts have said that they should be recognized. This case is to determine the future of marriage in Utah, and to a larger extent the limits of the 10th Ammendment.

    June 26, 2014 1:23 p.m.


    That was my point. When a law is found to be unconstitutional (like banning all guns) it should not be defended. Eighteen different federal judges have ruled that laws against Same Sex Marriage are unconstitutional. Likewise you are right that the state could not lawfully invalidate all Mormon marriages. Yet you support the state's decision to not recognize the marriage of over 1300 couples performed legally here in Utah and many others performed in other states. If each state gets to decide their own marriage laws there will be many that choose to not recognize yours.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    June 26, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    "More needs to be done to restore confidence in A.G.'s office"

    . . . Like prosecuting, trying, convicting, and sentencing the last two AG's.

    But what are the chances of that?

    Slim to none?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 26, 2014 11:45 a.m.

    To"FatherOfFour" first of all, the hypothetical laws you propose are against the US constitution. You see, you cannot ban all guns. Washington DC tried that, and found out the hard way that it is against the US Constitution. As for voiding all LDS marriages, that can't happen either because of marriage laws and you cannot have sex post facto Laws. You could creat laws that say from a certain time forward that a certain group cannot perform marriages that are recognized by the state, but that would be thrown out because of US anti-discrimination laws that have made religion a protected class.

    To "CHS 85" recent rulings show that polygamy is not illegal as long as you don't try to have more than one marriage recognized by the government. When the UT DCFS finds out about child abuse, they do act and have arrested people in the past.

    June 26, 2014 11:27 a.m.

    Omni scent -

    In your scenario, I would agree with an AG defending that law.

    CHS 85 -

    My bisggest complaint about Shurtleff was his refusal to enfforce polygamy laws because of the potential burden on the State. That was not his concern IMO

    Integrity does not know political, religious, or social affiliations. I know atheists who display great integrity, and I respect them immensely for it. I know members of my own faith (LDS) who have none of it whatsoever....

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    June 26, 2014 11:03 a.m.


    "It isn't his responsibility to determine if a law is correct or not; we have a judicial branch that does that."

    You mean like laws against polygamy, child sex abuse (see polygamy). I guess only Amendment 3 is the only law that is what you want defended?

    I drove through Colorado City last month. There still seems to be a lot of polygamy going on there. There are still pregnant 14-year-old girls there. There are still marriages (although not legal ones) going on between children and adults. I thought all of that was illegal. Am I wrong?

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:39 a.m.

    About the AG defending the law: let's just say a state passed a law with 50.01% of the population voting to ban all guns; rifles, shotguns, paint ball guns, water guns, whatever. How many of you world be for the AG defending that state law? How many times should he appeal before he realizes he's fighting in vain?

  • CentervilleDad Centerville, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:34 a.m.

    I am a registered Republican but could see the corruption in the AG office.
    So, I have voted for every democrat AG for the past several years, due to this.

    Not defending the state Constitution, and picking and choosing laws, will cause me to finally vote for a Republican AG.

    I am not sure someone from inside the office can clean up an office. I would fear that corruption would not be found by an insider as they don't want to offend a good old buddy that has worked next to them for years. If he were a whistle blower I might consider him a viable candidate, but this is the first we have heard from him.

    That is why Sean Reyes looks so good compared to This new candidate, at least he came from outside the office.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:17 a.m.

    Apparently this dude has not figured out that part of his oath of office would be to defend the law. Not just the ones that he likes. If he doesn't like the law he can try to change it through the legislature. Otherwise he's obligated to defend the law. Even amendment 3.

    I won't be voting for him unlike some of you, I don't consider his promise to not defend a law that he doesn't like as particularly enlightened.

    Reyes knows what he's doing and Rome wasn't built in a day. To correct the problems and attitudes at the AG's office will take some time.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    June 26, 2014 9:50 a.m.

    The AG office needs a thorough meltdown and rebuild. Stormont is in a position to do that. He has my vote.

    June 26, 2014 9:48 a.m.


    If the majority of Utah (or any other state in America) votes to ban all guns and nullify all Mormon marriages, would that be OK too? Would the AG be sworn to defend that? After all, it is the "will of the people".

  • Ender Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    The UTAH AG is a UTAH employee, not a federal one. I would expect him to uphold laws passed by the UTAH Legislature. He is not paid to interpret the US Constitution. Last time I checked, that was the US Supreme Court's job, not the UTAH attorney general's.

    June 26, 2014 8:53 a.m.

    The AG is sworn to defend Utah law.

    Regardless of my opinion on SSM, what really troubles me is these civil servants who decide that their own political or legal opinion matters more than their oath to defend tha law. The reason the Prop 8 suit was dismissed by SCOTUS was simply because the correct party to appeal - the Governor and AG of CA - did not defend the suit. They were derelict in their duty and defied the very oath they took when sworn in!

    The AGs personal opinions are irrelevant - it is his duty to defend Ammendment 3 until it is either upheld to struck down. That is how the legal process is supposed to work.

    Integrity used to matter in this world. Now it is an "old fashioned" value. If people had more integrity we would have a better world...

    June 26, 2014 8:01 a.m.

    Go Stormont! I have talked to this man several times. He is absolutely incredible and I am looking forward to voting for him.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 26, 2014 7:03 a.m.

    Two corrupt AGs in a row, followed by a "yes man". The AGs office is in serious need of an overhaul.

    average_joe says:

    "The AG is responsible to defend ALL Utah laws ..."

    Did you know that the US Constitution is Utah's primary and ultimate law? You want the AG to defend a local law that violates our primary law? When your rights have been removed by a popular vote, get back with me. And so far, the judicial branch HAS determined that the law is NOT correct. Over and over and over. How many losses is enough before you admit that the law was wrong to begin with?

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    June 26, 2014 6:01 a.m.

    Sounds like a guy I'd vote for.

    --registered Republican

  • average_joe Proovo, UT
    June 25, 2014 5:50 p.m.

    I would never vote for a candidate that openly declares that he will choose which laws to defend (speaking of Amendment 3). I want to be confident that he always represents the interests of the people in the state of Utah, especially when a law was put forth through a statewide vote rather than the state legislature. The AG is responsible to defend ALL Utah laws and if I can't trust him to uphold the will of the people on this issue, how can I trust he'll uphold laws about education or health care that he personally doesn't like? It isn't his responsibility to determine if a law is correct or not; we have a judicial branch that does that.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 5:02 p.m.

    I listened to him today during his news conference. He is enlightened and able to realizer what is important. I'm impressed with him.