Political Wish List: Ken Cuccinelli for U.S. Attorney General

I know it probably won’t happen, and nobody is even talking about it. But if Romney does win, I’d love to see him pick Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to be U.S. Attorney General.

By all accounts, Cuccinelli is putting things in place to be the next governor of Virginia, which would be great for me since I live here, but I’m willing to share him. That’s just the kind of guy I am.

Why do I like him so much? Well, he’s Catholic, for starters. Actually Catholic, not just someone who says that because they like the sound of it. Which means he’s also very pro-life. He has seven children. My wife worked with him when he was in the state senate to get the bill pushed through that made it possible for the Virginia DMV to offer “Choose Life” license plates (which I now see everywhere I go). He took a personal interest in making that happen.

He’s also currently in a battle with the state health board over new regulations on abortion clinics issued earlier this summer. The Virginia Board of Health voted to exempt abortion clinics from meeting new structural and design standards applied to other medical facilities like hospitals. But Cuccinelli’s office said that conflicts with the law, and he won’t certify their decision:

The board of health last month amended draft regulations to effectively grandfather clinics into compliance with the new design and building requirements. At the June 15 meeting, Senior Assistant Attorney General Allyson Tysinger advised the board that its action conflicted with state law and said the attorney general’s office was not likely to certify the regulations.

In a memo to Virginia Health Commissioner Karen Remley that was made public late Monday afternoon, Tysinger wrote that the board had exceeded its authority and that the attorney general’s office could not certify the regulations.

“Our office is the first to review to determine whether the board has statutory authority to promulgate the regulations,” Cuccinelli spokesman Brian Gottstein said in an email. “Our office merely reviews the regulations and certifies whether they are compliant with the law or not. We make that determination solely on a legal basis, not on the basis of whether we agree with the policy or not.”

The proposed regulations will go through additional executive branch analysis before McDonnell acts. McDonnell could approve the regulations or return them to the board of health with recommended changes. The regulations then would be open for another round of public comment, another vote by the board and additional executive branch review before becoming final.

“This has a ways to go through the process,” said McDonnell, who signed the 2011 legislation requiring abortion clinics to meet more stringent building standards.

“I certainly won’t approve legislation that isn’t faithful to the intent of the law, which I supported,” McDonnell told reporters.

Cuccinelli was one of the first state AGs to file a suit (and do so effectively) arguing that Obamacare’s mandate is unconstitutional. Of the health care legislation, he stated that it was “the greatest erosion of liberty in my adult lifetime.”

This is supposed to be a joke at Cuccinelli's expense. I just think I'll call him Miles Davis.

He’s a second amendment advocate.

He’s fighting to reduce the government’s power of eminent domain.

On pretty much any issue he’s litigating, he’s on the right side of it.

I admit, I don’t know enough about political fast-tracking to know for certain whether stepping into the top spot at the Department of Justice would be good or bad for Cuccinelli’s long-term political prospects. Maybe being governor of Virginia first would give him the executive experience he needs to run for President a few years down the road. He’d make an impressive candidate.

All I know is that I’d love to see someone running the Justice Department who actually understands liberty, natural rights, and human dignity. Call me a dreamer.



  • A Love Supreme

    One plays trumpet, the other sax. Maybe that might help you differentiate the two. Why don’t you know any black, Orthodox Catholics with good writing chops? Do you know any African American Catholics? Are you of the opinion that none of them can write the way you want them to? Why can’t anybody make a critical comment around here without a curtain being pulled? I thought the days of the iron curtain were over. No card needs to be played here because the dealer is flush out.

  • Just Want to Know

    How many Miles Davis CDs do you have? How many does Cuccinelli have? Can either of you name a Miles Davis song and hum it? How many black columnists does this website feature? Why is that?

    • Joe M

      Seriously? The mention of Miles Davis is an opportunity to play the race card?

    • Steve Skojec

      Not that I take you seriously, but Miles Davis is a near-constant feature in my Spotify playlist. Unfortunately, unlike the girl John Mayer sung about, I can’t yet distinguish “Miles from Coltrain.” Give it time. I don’t hang out with Cuccinelli and compare albums though, so I can’t tell you how many he has. Of course, that image was created by the Virginia Democratic Party, who were lampooning Cuccinelli for suing the government and “moving Virginia backward.” So maybe you should ask them. As for the “black columnists” question, I don’t make the editorial decisions around here, but if you know any black, orthodox Catholics with good writing chops who would like to post here, I have absolutely no doubt they’d be welcome to do so.

    • Randall

      Sorry JWTK but this is not an affirmative action website. They only ask the best and brightest to write for them. You’ll have to find “quotas” being filled elsewhere.


    Steve, I support the Second Amendment too. I would hope, however that Mr. Cuccinelli would have courage to stand up to the NRA and oppose the unrestricted availability of after market 30 round magazines for Glocks and 100 round magazines AK-47 and AR-15 – Pax Greg

    • Steve Skojec

      I don’t understand why people support the 2nd amendment but then want to find ways to restrict it. If I want a 30-round magazine for my Glock instead of the 13-round magazine it came with, why shouldn’t I be able to buy that? Have you ever shot an AR-15? They’re fantastic for target shooting. I’d love to be able to afford one, and a 100 round magazine to go with it. If the reason the founders intended us to have the right to bear arms was to defend ourselves from threats, why should we limit the scope of how efficiently we can execute such a defense?

      • Greg Smith

        Steve – I qualified expert with the M-16, have fired an AK-74, both on full auto. I shoot trap and skeet and own five firearms. The Second Amendment is no more absolute than the First Amendment (Snake Handling Cases, fire in a crowded theater, terrorist threats.) If the not-legally- mentally-ill, law abiding citizen in the adjoining wall condo believes a shotgun isn’t enough and he needs a flamethrower to protect hearth and home do we let him? The extended capacity magazines caused the death toll to rise in both the Gifford’s assignation attempt and Aurora. Other than in a fantasy mass Zombie attack, they serve no tactical purpose for home defense. _Pax, Greg

    • Mark

      Greg, “restricting availability” of anything just means that you make it harder for law-abiding citizens (i.e., the ones you don’t really have to worry about) to get something. It really doesn’t put any damper on those who will disobey the law in any case; thus, all it does is ensure that those who will use these weapons to break the law can outgun those who would defend others.

      In other words, what you’re asking for doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

  • Michael

    Cuccinelli is someone who understands human dignity? I guess you would have to say that the USCCB is wrong on human dignity, then. Once you get past the laundry list of conservative talking points above, you would see that Cuccinelli’s stance on immigration is a direct violation of human dignity. You see, Cuccinelli wants to revoke citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants who were born in the United States. Further, Cuccinelli wants to make the inability to speak English in a workplace “misconduct” and bar “violators” from receiving any sort of unemployment assistance. But don’t let facts get in your way.

    • Steve Skojec

      Understanding human dignity doesn’t mean you let your society become overrun. Have you read Senate Joint Resolution No. 131, wherein Cuccinelli supposedly seeks to “revoke citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants who were born in the United States”? Your phrasing is almost an exact quote of the Wikipedia entry on his political beliefs. So I followed the footnote to the bill itself. You can find it here: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+ful+SJ131 The language of the suggested amendment to the 14th Amendment reads, “All persons born to at least one parent who is already a US Citizen or who are naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” How is this problematic? It’s not seeking to revoke the citizenship of people who are already citizens under existing law, it’s seeking to change the law to make it harder to become a U.S. citizen just because you’re born on U.S. soil. Lots of people cross the border to have a kid in the U.S. and then go back to Mexico. I dated a girl who was a U.S. citizen because of that exact scenario. As for an inability to speak English in a U.S. workplace as a form of misconduct, why not? If you can’t communicate with the people you work with or work for, it’s a problem. I also know this from experience, having worked with crews that can’t speak any English. Would you be surprised if I told you that when that happens it’s usually because they’re illegal? My father-in-law is a Chinese-born U.S. citizen. He earned his citizenship the hard way. He learned English. He joined the military. He worked his way up. That’s the way it should be. We can’t afford to hand free passes to 20 million illegals, and the bishops, no matter how much they wring their hands, have no infallibility on this subject.

      • Michael

        Steve: can you name any Catholic teaching or pastoral letter that concludes that making attaining citizenship harder is the appropriate path to support human dignity?

        • Mark

          Michael: can you name any Catholic teaching or pastoral letter that concludes that granting citizenship is equivalent to supporting human dignity? After all, this is what your question to Steve asking for specific Catholic teaching assumes, so I’m sure that you must have authentic and specific Catholic teaching to back it up.

        • Steve Skojec

          Pastoral letters don’t hold any authoritative weight, so let’s stay away from those. Church teaching, though, we have. Since I don’t have the ability to format, I’ve used asterisks to highlight these sections from the catechism.

          CCC 2241 “The more prosperous nations are obliged, *to the extent they are able*, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

          *Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions*, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.” In other words, nations have a right to create immigration laws, and immigrants have a moral obligation to accept them. We are obligated, insofar as we are prosperous, to try to accommodate those immigrants attempting to become citizens of our nation because they have no opportunity at home. But we are no longer very prosperous, and the financial drain of tens of millions of illegal immigrants on our already overburdened economy is not insubstantial. Regulation of immigration is the only logical recourse of a just society that seeks to preserve its own interests.



Receive our updates via email.