Looks like there's a little scuffle a-brewin' up north ... and it ain't gonna be pretty.
On one side, Governor Jim Gibbons, who thinks the newly passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will be bad for Nevada. Gibbons wants to try to stop enforcement of the bill by either joining forces with other state Attorney Generals or by going it alone through the Nevada Attorney General's office.
On the other side, Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, who wants to read the legislation and wait for a reconciliation bill aimed at refining it to pass, before deciding whether or not to take legal action.
Yesterday, Gibbons threw down the gauntlet and directed Masto to sue. Masto claimed that her approval is required for the state to take any legal action, and that no action will be taken. In support of her position, Masto relies upon NRCP Rule 11 and is reportedly also relying upon NRS 228.110(1):
The Attorney General and the duly appointed deputies of the Attorney General shall be the legal advisers on all state matters arising in the Executive Department of the State Government.
In the Governor's corner, NRS 228.170(1):
Whenever the Governor directs or when, in the opinion of the Attorney General, to protect and secure the interest of the State it is necessary that a suit be commenced or defended in any federal or state court, the Attorney General shall commence the action or make the defense.Looks to us like Masto has an uphill battle on her hands. One of our tipsters made the following observation:
To me, that sounds like the attorney ignoring the client's specific direction, but maybe I'm wrong.
Doesn't sound like too bad of an analogy to us, what do you guys think? How is this "showdown" likely to end?