Establishment Ken Strikes Again!

By Loudoun Insider

me-37th“Establishment Ken” has got to be his new nickname, now that he has a statewide office and seems to be doing everything he can to diminish his fellow conservatives who happen to be potential rivals.  The Cooch now also says that teachers can confiscate student’s cell phones and read their messages.  Utterly ridiculous – if I had a kid I would tell them to shove the phone up the teacher’s …, well, you get the picture (if not ask DB or ED!).


  • James Young says:

    The Attorney General is obviously right on the law, and you are obviously not qualified to comment on the issue, either as a parent (which you’re not) or an attorney (which you don’t claim to be). Teachers’ authority in this regard is well-established in the analogous situations of passing notes in class, and you merely demonstrate your own ignorance by attacking his opinion on the subject.

  • Big government Ken strikes again. This man is no conservative. He’s a fraud to the 100th degree.

  • Loudoun Lady says:

    James is right – teachers already have the authority to pick up a note (written on paper) and read it, and if it says “Let’s beat up Joe after school” – the teacher alerts the principal or law enforcement.

  • Loudoun Outsider says:

    In the end, the opinion of the attorney general is just the opinion of another lawyer.

  • Linda B says:

    Did you read the opinion, LI? It was in response to a specific (and fairly compelling) example of the need for such action and is based on his interpretation of legal precedent. I don’t think KC was declaring this the end-all-be-all on the topic.

    It all seems reasonable to me, but then again, I went to 12 years of Catholic school, and student rights weren’t high on the nuns’ list. Got a great education, though … perhaps not entirely coincidentally.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    As blowhard lawyer Jimmy Young asserts, Linda, I am not a lawyer and I did not read the opinion. But I do think this flies in the face of Establishment Ken’s Don’t Tread On Me liberty seeking persona. But it is right in line with his contradictory religion pushing agenda – to hell with personal liberty as long as it’s for moral crusading.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    And I really hate to link to Blue Virginia, but this may get interesting as time goes on as well:

  • Linda B says:

    So now anti-bullying is moral crusading? Because that is the example he was asked to comment on … what if a kid claims s/he is being sent bullying texts?

  • Loudoun Lady says:

    Actually LI – you don’t hate to link to Blue Virginia. You do it all the time when it suits your purpose. Anti-KC, Dick Black, Howie Lind, blah, blah, blah posts – pop up here to legitimize your position(s).

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Linda, then the kid can willfully hand over his phone, I don’t agree with teachers taking them of their own volition.

    LL, that is worth discussing if it pits Corey Stewart against Establishment Ken on immigration.

  • what kind of school discipline do you think is constitutional? oh, I would point you to Brian’s article on Common Sense and BD on calling everything unconstitutional or an infringement of liberty 🙂

  • Linda B says:

    Sigh, LI, you really should just read the opinion. It’s only about three pages long, is in fact pretty interesting, and (take it from a non-lawyer) you don’t have to be lawyer to understand it.

    I think you will find Ken’s opinion is far from “utterly ridiculous” … doesn’t surprise me that BV or the WaPo are trying to make him out to be an idiot but I really wish you’d give him the benefit of the doubt once in a while. Even if you disagree with the opinion, it IS a reasoned one based on his interpretation of existing law and prior court rulings. And it most definitely does not give a sense that he is “crusading.” The criticism (or at least the tone of the criticism) is in my opinion unwarranted and unproductive.

  • James Young says:

    “blowhard lawyer Jimmy Young,” “Loudmouthed Inciter”?

    The Chief Justice of the United States calls me “Mr. Young.” An ignorant blowhard too cowardly to attach his name to his bloviations might want to consider the same courtesy.

  • G. Stone says:

    KC just memorializes what is already law, while responding to a specific request. This is a non issue.

    Your kid is not sitting in English class to text his or her friends or serf the web looking for cool music to download. Teachers should have a policy that says -Don’t bring your phone to class. If I see I own it.

    What ever happened to common sense ?

  • Thank you Greg. 🙂

  • When will the Attorney General learn that it isn’t his job to write opinions accurately telling people what the law is when people ask him? 😛

  • ETR says:

    School districts have been too spineless to enforce even a modest policy of not using cell phones for nefarious things (e.g., cyberbullying and texting test questions to friends in a later section of the same class, or downright looking up answers, or taking pictures of tests to send to people who’ll take them later)

    Loudoun has an insane policy of requiring teachers to tolerate cell phones on the desk–as long as the little darlings aren’t using them. Newsflash–if the phones aren’t being used, they don’t need to be out on a desk.

  • ETR says:

    I’d also add that if a teacher can check a kid’s locker or confiscate any notes being passed back and forth, they can certainly confiscate a cell phone as well.

  • James Young says:

    Yeah, Willie. How dare he!

  • Chris says:

    I have a good friend who’s a teacher at a Catholic school and they ban cell phones during the day. They stay in the car. The problem they were having was students texting answers to tests and other kinds of cheating. Nothing wrong with a teacher taking a kids cell phone from him, I would too.

  • James Young says:

    It’s a terrible thing that our Attorney General is so behind the times on these things:

  • Rtwng Extrmst says:

    Hey LI, ever consider that these opinions are based on Ken and his staff’s best assessment of the law??? Maybe that’s why his decisions fairly regularly fall across the bow of some of his political allies??? No, of course your hatred of Ken would not allow that kind of reasoned assessment…

    BTW, nice picture of Ken in the insert. I remember when that was taken. It was at the FFX gov’t center during the recount of his victory in 2007. He was probably up without sleep for about at least 36 hours at that time. I recommend you stay up for 36 hours straight and let me take a picture of you and post it here and see if you look half as good.

  • BlackOut says:

    RE, any chance you can use your influence to get KC involved in the recent UVA study of Stewart/Prince William County policy on illegal immigration?

    It appears this study is being used to promote Stewart and it was funded by Stewart via PWC. Seems to be a funded government endeavor that has produced bogus results and I think the Commonwealth needs protection. Can you get a word in on this? We’re being exploited.

    UVA is known for producing favorable studies based on the wishes of the funding entity.

  • The Bulletproof Monk says:

    BO….you do know that Stewart/Rule of Law was challenged and prevailed, right??

  • BlackOut says:

    What the hell does that have to do with the misuse of public funds?

  • G. Stone says:

    KC for AG ! KC for AG ! oh sorry I have been up for 36 hours and forgot Ken already won. Good thing he did. Had he not won we Virginia would not be leading the nation on getting rid of Obamacare. Thank you KC !!

  • Charles says:

    Well, at least I’ll have to give you credit for a refreshing bit of honesty. It’s not often that a blogger will make a post, and then readily admit in the comments that they were willfully ignorant and clueless about the topic of their post.

    It does however once again leave me in amazement that people would care about the opinion of a person who seems pleased with his complete lack of interest in facts, even about things he directly comments on.

    People’s opinions are interesting, when based on a reading of the evidence. Ignorant opinions are useless; or maybe less than useless, when the poster makes people waste their time reading the uninformed opinion.

  • Charles says:

    BTW, if you get over your fear of reading legal opinions, LI, you should also go to the original OAG opinion about the rule of law, and read it in it’s entirety.

    Ken is an excellent AG, and has a solid grasp of the law, and his office is very good at explaining their opinions in a way that I’m sure even you, untrained and disinterested as you are, will be able to understand and appreciate.

    And if you want to pretend it sullies you to link to what is likely your favorite blog (bluevirginia), you could have spent a little bit of time actually doing your own work, and found this link to the actual OAG opinion:


Leave Comment