What, Exactly, Was Governor Lujan Grisham’s Plan?

By Charles C. W. Cooke

Wednesday, September 13, 2023

 

Caroline notes that:

 

New Mexico’s Democratic attorney general notified the governor, a fellow Democrat, on Tuesday that he will not defend her in litigation challenging her public health order temporarily banning firearms in certain counties and imposing other gun restrictions.

 

Because:

 

“Though I recognize my statutory obligation as New Mexico’s chief legal officer to defend state officials when they are sued in their official capacity, my duty to uphold and defend the constitutional rights of every citizen takes precedence,” New Mexico attorney general Raúl Torrez wrote to fellow Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham in a letter. “Simply put, I do not believe that the Emergency Order will have any meaningful impact on public safety but, more importantly, I do not believe it passes constitutional muster.”

 

What, I must ask, was the plan here? Was there one? Since Lujan Grisham made her statement, she’s been denounced by the sheriff of the county to which it was supposed to apply, by her own attorney general, and by figures such as David Hogg and Ted Lieu, who, in normal circumstances, serve as strenuous advocates of stricter gun-control. Could it really be that the governor just . . . blurted it out?

 

It is hard to imagine how Lujan Grisham could have made a worse case. In the space of a single day, she confessed that the order was predicated upon nothing other than her own desire, admitted to violating her oath, anticipated a legal challenge that she seemed sure would prevail, took square aim at the concept of legal rights per se, and, to top it all off, conceded that her idea would do nothing whatsoever to help the ersatz “emergency” she had declared. Typically, when executives attempt to usurp the prerogatives of the legislative branch, they pretend there is a statutory provision that enables their action. Lujan Grisham did no such thing. Usually, when individual rights are being abridged, the infringer points to a court decision or judicial precedent or legal treatise to back up their claims — even if the case they are making is stupid and they they know it. Lujan Grisham skipped that part completely. At the very least, the architects of such measures like to make a blunt utilitarian case in their favor: “this is just too important . . . ,” or what you will. Lujan Grisham told the press openly that her policy was completely futile.

 

So why do it? What was the strategy? Before this, nobody in America knew who the governor of New Mexico was. Now, they know who the governor of New Mexico is, because, in an attempt to circumvent the American constitutional order, she has been rebuffed by even her allies. I’m familiar with the idea that all publicity is good publicity, but I do not believe it applies here. Occam’s razor would suggest that she’s a fool.