More on Conway's dereliction of duty

The more we think about Jack Conway's refusal to defend Kentucky law and the state constitution from a legal challenge, the more we think that not only has he committed an impeachable offense, he has committed legal malpractice as well.

Everyone knows that attorneys are required to give their clients the most zealous representation possible. Even an attorney who knows his client is guilty is obligated to try to get the client acquitted of criminal charges. If the attorney knows deep down that the case is lost, he's still required to try to win it unless the client agrees to a plea deal.

So, even if Conway is convinced an appeal of the federal court ruling on same-sex marriage would lose, he's still obligated to defend that position, especially since the defendant (Gov. Steve Beshear) wanted to pursue the appeal.

This situation now begs another question. If Conway is so convinced that the appeal will be unsuccessful and he personally cannot go through with it, then why did he defend the state in the first place? Have his feelings on the matter changed since the lawsuit was first filed? Or did he suddenly feel the need to pander to the liberal wing of his own party?

Most people who have commented on this story on various media forums since it first broke have praised Conway for his principled stance, criticized Gov. Steve Beshear's pursuit of the appeal as promoting discrimination, and so forth and so on. These people are clueless. Beshear is not supporting bigotry. He no doubt holds the same personal belief on the subject as does Conway. He's a liberal Democrat, after all. But at least he realizes that his personal feelings are unimportant in this matter. He realizes he has an obligation to fulfill his oath of office.

As could be predicted, most media outlets in the state took Conway's side. This isn't surprising. The Lexington Herald-Leader basically has an "end justifies the means" outlook when it comes to liberal policies, as evidenced by their opinion earlier this year that the Supreme Court shouldn't reverse President Obama's illegal recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board because that would overturn an NLRB decision with which they agreed. They aren't bothered by Conway's failure to do what he's required to do if it corresponds to their leftist agenda. That's why we were pleasantly surprised when the Bowling Green Daily News basically came to the same conclusion we did.

We think impeachment of Jack Conway is an appropriate response to his dereliction of duty. We know that's an impossible result, given the political makeup of the House of Representatives. The more we think about it, the more we think disbarment might also be appropriate. That's even less likely to happen, but we're beginning to believe it should.