By Scott Daniels, Esq., NFL Draft Bible
Mission Statement of the Utah Attorney General's Office
The mission of the Office of the Utah Attorney General is to uphold the constitutions of the United States and of Utah, enforce the law, provide counsel to state agencies and public officials, to work with law enforcement and protect the interests of Utah, its people, environment and resources.
With our team of highly qualified attorneys, investigators and staff members, we ensure the law is upheld and the rights of all citizens – no matter how young or old – are preserved. We especially focus on protecting children. We also make every effort to educate the public about safety, justice, liberty and equal opportunity.
As we see it, it is our duty to diligently work with integrity every day to fulfill these responsibilities as we serve the citizens of Utah. That is our entire focus. That is our mission.
____________________________________________________________________
Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General, appears to have misinterpreted his own mission statement.
Apparently, Shurtleff feels that the good people of Utah were legally harmed by the evil Bowl Championship Series. Afterall, it seems perfectly legitimate to launch an investigation into alleged antitrust violations by the BCS immediately after the University of Utah defeated Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, prompting many to argue that Utah should be considered the nation's top college football team.
Is this guy serious? Does he not value his position as Attorney General? And haven't we seen this fiasco once before with the outspoken United States Senator, Arlen Specter, and his crusade against the NFL in the wake of the SpyGate conspiracy?
Shurtleff claims in his mission statement that his office will attempt to protect the interests of Utah, its people, environment and resources. How does going after the BCS in the court of law protect anyone other than the people associated and monetarily connected to the University of Utah? Last time I checked, citizens of Utah were not entitled to any of the millions of dollars given to the University of Utah for participating in this year's Sugar Bowl.
More importantly, how is Shurtleff's pointless attack on the BCS protecting the resources of the state of Utah? We are in a recession. The national economy is in horrible shape. Unemployment numbers are staggering. State agencies are hurting for money and the mighty attorney general from Utah wants to use his scarce resources to investigate an obvious flawed format that is the BCS.
What is it with elected officials and their obsession to be recognized? There is no way this Attorney General can justify an investigation into the BCS. This is college football. The BCS is governed by several collegiate conferences. The University of Utah is not the only school that has been snubbed by the BCS. And the fact that the Utes may be at a financial disadvantage because they are virtually ignored for a National Title bid does not warrant a full scale investigation by the state's highest lawyer by stature.
I don't care how he spins it, Attorney General Shurtleff is blatantly imitating the actions of United States Senator Arlen Specter, who finally gave up his crusade against the NFL after crucial evidence turned out to be bleak at best. Shurtleff may raise valid and thought provoking issues that might influence change to our current BCS format, but he is in no way fulfilling his civil duty as an Attorney General.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Political Publicity Stunt? Or Just Plain Stupidity?
Posted by College Football Insiders at 12:46 PM
Labels: Attorney General, bcs, Mark Shurtleff, Publicity Stunt, utah
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 Comment:
Those are all good points because every legal challenge brought by the an attorney general must always impact every single citizen in the state. Like all the anti-trust settlements he arranged in his state, every single one affected every single person in Utah. Even the US attorney general only seeks cases that affect every single person in the country. It is not good enough to only protect a few disadvantaged persons. It is clearly a violation of public trust for the government to go after folks who violate the civil rights of only a few people. Nice, well thought out piece.
Post a Comment