Kansas Olligarch Governor ends independent Judiciary

[ChristianProgressive]

In the aftermath of the TEAOP legal coup de tat/I] involving the WI Supreme Court (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...ollows-RW-Takeover-of-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court), Kansas Governor Brownshirt...excuse me, Brownback, has signed into law a bill that effectively allows him to shut down the courts if they rule against him.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-kansas-brownback-tea-party-20150609-story.html

How much more blatant does this fascist takeover of the US have to get before people really get fed up?

 

[Corsair 115]

For some reason I find myself paraphrasing the last lines of the movie Chinatown:

"Forget it, ChristianProgressive. It's Kansas."

 

[Trebuchet]

I'm somehow surprised I didn't read about this first at Freethought Blogs, where I visit regularly.

 

[Tony Stark]

**** Republicans.

 

[C_Felix]

How the hell is this even possible?

And, I love the fact that a Republican did this. All the while Republicans are the self-proclaimed defenders of the Constitution.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

And, I love the fact that a Republican did this. All the while Republicans are the self-proclaimed defenders of the Constitution.

They're the only ones with the strength to do what's necessary to protect the Constitution from itself. Or something.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The fact the legislature controls the budget is the "checks and balances". That is one reason why budget power is often concentrated. Heck, on the federal level the legislature can strip a court's ability to hear certain cases.

 

[casebro]

Is that what the bill actually says? And has it been through at least the state supreme court yet?

 

[jhunter1163]

I would think this is probably illegal at the federal level, though IANAL.

ETA: On further reading, clearly unconstitutional under the separation of powers principle.

 

[crescent]

How the hell is this even possible?

And, I love the fact that a Republican did this. All the while Republicans are the self-proclaimed defenders of the Constitution.

The current idea seems to be that the Constitution means whatever Republicans want it to mean. Judges upholding Republican ideas are checks and balances, but judges ruling against republican policies are "Judiciary run amok", or "unelected officials", or, well, whatever other catchphrase that might be appropriate to get the rank and file to ignore that whole pesky Article III.

Case and point to me was the Cliven Bundy fiasco. The guy had multiple court orders against him. Federal Land retention and management has been challenged in the supreme court and found there to be constitutional in two separate cases. Yet Repuplican lawmakers were happy to parrot lines about how unconstitutional it all is and how rightful it is to use armed resistance to avoid court orders rather than just hiring a lawyer.

They see money in the disposal of federal lands, so they have decided that disposal is constitutionally manadated. No amount of constititutional due process will cause them to believe otherwise, because Article III only counts if the courts decide in their favor.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I would think this is probably illegal at the federal level, though IANAL.

ETA: On further reading, clearly unconstitutional under the separation of powers principle.

Ate you talking about the budget one? That does not strike me as a violation.

 

[Upchurch]

I wonder what Governor Brownback's position is on Obama's executive overreach.

 

[sunmaster14]

I would think this is probably illegal at the federal level, though IANAL.

ETA: On further reading, clearly unconstitutional under the separation of powers principle.

If it's unconstitutional, then presumably the state supreme court will strike it down. I'm not sure what the problem is. Is there some other constitutional provision that says the legislature has to pass clean budget bills?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Is that what the bill actually says?

Is that a serious question? It's on Daily Kos, so it must be true.

 

[sunmaster14]

Is that what the bill actually says? And has it been through at least the state supreme court yet?

The bill is a budget bill which contains a provision to allow state district courts to choose their own chief judges (currently, the state supreme court chooses chief judges at the district level). The bill also contains language which says that none of the provisions in the bill are severable. That means that all of the parts of the bill are supposed to fit together, so that if one part is struck down as unconstitutional, the bill is considered null and void. That's not an uncommon clause by the way. Sometimes bills have a severability clause which means the opposite.

Anyway, the upshot is that if the state supreme court finds the provision about district court chief judges to be unconstitutional (as it usurps the state supreme court's authority in choosing chief judges), then the whole bill is gone, along with the funding for the court system. Presumably, the legislature could pass a new funding bill of course. Or not. It had that option before as well.

 

[C_Felix]

The bill is a budget bill which contains a provision to allow state district courts to choose their own chief judges (currently, the state supreme court chooses chief judges at the district level). The bill also contains language which says that none of the provisions in the bill are severable. That means that all of the parts of the bill are supposed to fit together, so that if one part is struck down as unconstitutional, the bill is considered null and void. That's not an uncommon clause by the way. Sometimes bills have a severability clause which means the opposite.

Anyway, the upshot is that if the state supreme court finds the provision about district court chief judges to be unconstitutional (as it usurps the state supreme court's authority in choosing chief judges), then the whole bill is gone, along with the funding for the court system. Presumably, the legislature could pass a new funding bill of course. Or not. It had that option before as well.

Sometimes, if you know poop is gonna hit the fan, sometimes it is better to let the poop hit the fan (and hope that people learn) instead of saving the poor fan from the incoming fecal barrage.

I hope the state supreme court strikes it down, and then the judicial branch goes unfunded, and then that branch of government grinds to a halt; and the consequences; well, some of us will just sit back and laugh.

 

[sunmaster14]

Sometimes, if you know poop is gonna hit the fan, sometimes it is better to let the poop hit the fan (and hope that people learn) instead of saving the poor fan from the incoming fecal barrage.

I hope the state supreme court strikes it down, and then the judicial branch goes unfunded, and then that branch of government grinds to a halt; and the consequences; well, some of us will just sit back and laugh.

Well, I hope the state supreme court strikes down the law if in fact it should be struck down. There appears to be a question of standing for the lawsuit, in addition to the question of merit. I have little doubt that if the law is struck down that the legislature will pass a new funding bill for the judiciary. It might not be as generous as the one currently in place, but it is politically untenable to not fund the judiciary at all.

 

[casebro]

And if the courts also strike the non-severability clause, problem solved.

 

[sunmaster14]

And if the legislature impeaches all of the state supreme court justices, the problem is also solved.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

If it's unconstitutional, then presumably the state supreme court will strike it down. I'm not sure what the problem is. Is there some other constitutional provision that says the legislature has to pass clean budget bills?

We can't count on courts to do their jobs any longer. Look at the long series of clearly wrong SCOTUS decisions over the last 10 years or so (immanent domain, Citizens United, et al).