Submitted by Nora Renzulli, Jun 27, 2007 10:22

Thank you for your focus on the Attorney General. I did not see any reference to the big case at the US Supreme Court on how we elect judges in NYS. I think it would be worth your while to do an investigative report into what about our institution mandates that the AG would be fighting that one to the mat. Or does the AG have discretion to not even take it? Please correct me if I am wrong but how does that work? Is the AG indeed representing the Board of Elections at the US Supreme Court in opposition to the Gleeson decision? Gleeson affirmed at the Circuit Court of Appeals ruled NYS has to change the way we select Supreme Court Judges. Why is the AG representing an opposing position? That seems inconsistent with an avowed purpose of solving real problems. Judge Gleeson minced no words talking about a "hack infested judiciary" and determined Supreme Court judicial selection in NYS has been done in a way that is unconstitution for the last 85 years. When can the AG say it is against his conscience to hold the position of my client public officer and just say I won't do it? Wouldn't this be such a situtation?

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.