And Now We Know Why NH’s AG Would Have “Tanked” The Automobile Inspections Case.
This post follows up on our post, Did New Hampshire’s Attorney General Deliberately ‘Tank’ The Automobile Inspections Case?, where we discussed the Attorney General’s failure to properly defend the lawsuit brought by Gordon-Darby to block a law scheduled to go into effect on January 31st, which ended mandatory automobile inspections.
More specifically, the Attorney General failed to raise the anti-commandeering doctrine, which prevents the federal government (which includes a federal court judge) from commanding a State to maintain a federal regulatory program:
We speculated whether the Attorney General’s failure to raise the anti-commandeering doctrine was incompetence or intentional, noting that the Attorney General had also failed to raise the strongest defense in the ConVal education funding case:
Tip of the hat to Terese Bastarche for exposing the consequences of the Attorney General NOT tanking the automobile-inspections case:
Apparently, New Hampshire’s federal highway funding is in the neighborhood of $300 million. We would say that this establishes a presumption that the Attorney General deliberately tanked the automobile-inspection case in order to avoid the potential loss of hundreds of millions in federal funding. If we had a Legislature that actually conducted oversight of the Executive Branch, we could expect hearings to get to the bottom of this. Needless to say, the Legislature we have does NOT include such oversight in its job description.
The question we are left with is … What did Kelly Ayotte know, and when did she know it.
Authors’ and Speakers’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers.
Disagree, agree, Got Something to Say, We Want to Hear It. Comment or submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com
