Sorry to double up – I already tweeted the link, but I’m still amused by the paid ad at JJ where AG candidate Mike Hurst lambasts Jim Hood for his “lack of leadership in defending Mississippi’s Constitution to responding to SCOTUS ruling” (that is GOP grammar).
Hurst (1) calls the ruling “judicial activism” and agrees with Scalia it’s a “threat to American democracy” (hm, wonder if that’s what Hurst thinks about Shelby County?); (2) says Christians should love everyone; (3) attacks Hood for supposedly not advocating strongly on behalf of the ban, with a swipe at poor Justin Matheny (who, as the linked article said, had trouble articulating a rational basis for the ban … was that the fault of the lawyers, or of the ban?); (4) faults Hood for conflicting statements the day of Obergefell and the following Monday (fair enough); and (5) complains that Hood advised clerks wishing to resist the U.S. Supreme Court that they should seek advice of counsel, rather than himself providing advice. (“You want to resist a U.S. Supreme Court decision? Good luck with that” is, I think, perfectly sound advice from an attorney general.)
None of this says just what Mike Hurst would have done differently, or how Hurst’s advocacy in the Mississippi case would’ve made a hill of beans’ worth of difference given that this issue was decided by SCOTUS in a Sixth Circuit case. If Hurst is going to criticize someone else’s leadership, one might think he would give an example of how he would lead, rather than demonstrating his qualifications for criticism from the sidelines. Heck, even bloggers can do that.
… Gov. Bryant has flopped, doubtless on the wise advice of counsel, and told the Fifth Circuit he has no basis to oppose its lifting the stay on Judge Reeves’s order striking the gay-marriage ban. We will keep our eyes peeled for Hurst’s statement criticizing the Gov.