As for the long arm statute, I’d have to read it in depth to see if it requires any ongoing duty on the part of the SOTS or it it requires the SOTS to act as attorney only if it was invoked, and then investigate whether it has been invoked at any point in the last so many years that Bysiewicz has been AG.

But overall, I think the meter is tending to point toward “qualified” (assuming, of course, that there is a requirement that the AG be a lawyer at all).

Truth is where opposites touch. No need to wonder.

What is the duty of a Supreme Court Justice after he affirms that a particular statute does not conform to the constitution? Presumably, it is to strike down the unconstitutional statute. If that were done in this case, how would the decision affect the administrative duties of the attorney general? My answer: Not at all. The office, for God sake, is a redoubt of lawyers, every one of whom, presumably, is capable of advising the attorney general how he/or she may proceed in specific cases. That is the way it is done right now. Blumenthal may write all the press releases; he does not try all the cases. The attorney general MAY try a case; he doesn’t have to. The problem is with the statute, not the constitution. And statures may be redrafted to conform both to the constitution and to reality. We are not – nor should we be – a lawyerocracy. I want a judge to be a lawyer; I want a defense council to be a lawyer. The attorney general… eh?