Is Michigan AG Mike Cox contradicting himself in defense of Andrew Shirvell?

The story of one Andrew Shirvell is accelerating at an incredibly fast pace since his appearance on Anderson Cooper 360°.

If you’re unfamiliar with the strange story, Shirvell is an Assistant AG for the state of Michigan who has been on a one man personal blogging crusade to insult, defame, and stalk the first openly gay student body president at The University of Michigan, Chris Armstrong.  His blog, which is no longer available to the public, features just about every imaginable gay-hating reference under the sun.  It included insults ranging from claims that Armstrong was a representative of Satan to being a racist, bigot and Nazi.  You can catch up with the story via my previous post here.

As could be predicted, the outcry to have Shirvell fired has grown to the point of forcing Attorney General Mike Cox to openly defend his position to not terminate his employee whom he has publicly labeled as someone who is clearly immature and lacks judgment.  Cox’s Facebook page has been inundated with fiery requests and pleas to step up and let Shirvell go.

Since this appearance Mr. Shirvell has taken a voluntary leave of absence from his position.  Cox, whose conservative politics fall in line with many of the fundamentals by which Shirvell defends himself, is holding firm in his decision to keep his underling on staff.  Here is Cox’s interview with Anderson Cooper:

One of the interesting things about this interview is Cox’s repeated use of The First Amendment to defend his argument that outside of the office Mr. Shirvell has the right to express himself as he deems fit.  Michigan does have a clause that allows termination for conduct unbecoming a state official but Cox argues that this is a hollow and impossible position to defend.  Basically Cox is throwing his hands up saying, ‘What can I do?’

Part of Cox’s political platform is the defense of individuals rights which he referenced repeatedly at political rallies during his unsuccessful run for Governor.  ‘Government needs to leave us alone,’ was the cry but a recent submittal signed by Cox to the Supreme Court seems to contradict this position.

In June of 2010 Attorney Generals from across the U.S. submitted an Amici Curiae in support of Albert Snyder v. Fred W. Phelps Sr.  An Amici Curiae in layman terms is defined as:

“Someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it.”

Snyder v. Phelps involves the volatile actions of The Westboro Baptist Church who openly protested funerals of American soldiers fallen in Afghanistan, with the message that America was being punished for tolerating homosexuality.  These protests included the funeral of soldier Matthew Snyder.

In this Amici Curiae in defense of the Snyder family the question put before the Supreme Court is this:

May the States protect the privacy and emotional health of grieving families from the psychological terrorism of persons who target such families with hostile picketing at funerals and internet postings that include personal attacks on the families and their deceased children?

Over many pages the signers of this petition including Cox argue that indeed States can protect families from psychological terrorism of persons who target such families with hostile picketing and internet postings that include personal attacks.  This is exactly what Shirvell has done, acts that Cox has openly admitted his awareness of.  The argument includes the following:

Among the signs the Phelpses used to target the Snyders at their son’s funeral were the following: “You’re Going To Hell”, “God Is Your Enemy”, “God Hates You”, “Thank God For Dead Soldiers”, “Semper Fi Fags”, and “Not Blessed Just Cursed.” These signs are plausibly read as targeting Matthew Snyder and his family. These were not “War Is Wrong” or “U.S. Out Of Iraq” signs; they were personal and vicious attacks, fully intended to target the mourners and intrude on the privacy of the funeral.

These could specifically and directly apply to the positions and tactics that Shirvell has taken against Mr. Armstrong.  It appears that Cox openly sees the limitations of the First Amendment when it comes to the outrageous insults targeted at a deceased soldier who has defended America but misplaces that vision when it comes to a homosexual student from his alma mater who is suffering the same brutal indignities.

The conclusion of the State AG’s Amicus brief states:

The Constitution does not stand in the way of the States acting to prevent the Phelpses from hijacking solemn funeral proceedings for their own hateful purposes at the expense of grieving American families.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the Fourth Circuit immunizing the Phelpses from all responsibility for their intentional infliction of emotional distress must be reversed.

The current heat on Cox has backed him into a corner and it appears as if he is going to go down defending his decision to keep Mr. Shirvell on staff.  The restraining order that Armstrong has filed against Shirvell has caused enough concern with the University that they have banned him from returning in person to the school.

It should be noted that Mr. Shirvell helped manage Cox’s reelection campaign in ’06.

The current Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, took to her Twitter account to express her opinion on the situation.  She stated:

“If I was still Attorney General and Andrew Shirvell worked for me, he would have already been fired.”