• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Kansas Olligarch Governor ends independent Judiciary

ChristianProgressive

Master Poster
C
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
2,860
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?
 
For some reason I find myself paraphrasing the last lines of the movie Chinatown:

"Forget it, ChristianProgressive. It's Kansas."
 
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.
 
Last edited:
C_Felix said:
And, I love the fact that a Republican did this. All the while Republicans are the self-proclaimed defenders of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


They're the only ones with the strength to do what's necessary to protect the Constitution from itself. Or something.
 
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.
 
Is that what the bill actually says? And has it been through at least the state supreme court yet?
 
C_Felix said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jhunter1163 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ate you talking about the budget one? That does not strike me as a violation.
 
jhunter1163 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
casebro said:
Is that what the bill actually says? And has it been through at least the state supreme court yet?
Click to expand...

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.
 
sunmaster14 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
C_Felix said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
And if the courts also strike the non-severability clause, problem solved.
 
And if the legislature impeaches all of the state supreme court justices, the problem is also solved.
 
sunmaster14 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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).
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Is that a serious question? It's on Daily Kos, so it must be true.
Click to expand...

The Kansas situation is discussed in the Times article, not the Kos diary (though Kos has done one on it as well). The Times article includes links to original source material, including the American Bar Association article about the manoeuvre:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...ing_off_court_funding_if_courts_strike_down_2

and

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...s_if_law_on_selection_of_chief_judges_is_over
 
ChristianProgressive said:
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?
Click to expand...


In thread title, did you mean Canis or Anus governor? (If you report your starting thread for needing a title fix, the mods will do that. I had to last week.........)
 
BobTheCoward said:
Citizens united was the right decision.
Click to expand...

Except for some reason people still take issue at foreign speech(money) going to political figures. Clearly it needs to be broadened. Why should the buying of our politicians be limited to only Americans after all?
 
ponderingturtle said:
Except for some reason people still take issue at foreign speech(money) going to political figures. Clearly it needs to be broadened. Why should the buying of our politicians be limited to only Americans after all?
Click to expand...

I agree. It should not be bases on citizenship.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Citizens united was the right decision.
Click to expand...

Utter BS! No man should have more influence over the political process via money than any other man. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." Remember? Also the 14th Amendment, which provides all citizens must stand equal before the law.

And since corporations are not persons in any way shape or form (another clearly wrong SCOTUS decision), they should have no political rights.

fuelair said:
In thread title, did you mean Canis or Anus governor? (If you report your starting thread for needing a title fix, the mods will do that. I had to last week.........)
Click to expand...

Oops...nice catch...thanks.
 
Last edited:
ChristianProgressive said:
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).
Click to expand...

I'm highly critical of the present Court, but there has to be some allowances for people that just don't agree with you without crossing into this sort of despairing implications of illegitimacy . Rending one's garments at every conservative decision from a conservative court cheapens the outrage at something that is true garbage in any light, like Bush v. Gore.


Keep in mind that conservatives thinking along the lines of your post is the reasoning behind what is going on in Kansas. They don't see it as violating the living crap out of the horizontal separation of powers, rather as stopping a judicial body that they see as not doing their jobs properly.

Hopefully the Kansas Court stands fast, and the resulting mess will at least be interesting. My guess is it eventually ends with something like a 7-2 vote (Thomas and Alito dissenting) holding that the guarantee clause is both justiciable and requires an independent judiciary free of such directed funding threats. In the end, if nothing else, judges tend to circle the wagons when the power of the judiciary is at stake.
 
Since a major user of the judicial system is the business community, I'm surprised there hasn't been some noise from them about this bill. Or has there been?
 
fishbob said:
Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors.
I don't think "WAAAH I didn't get my way" counts.
Click to expand...

Who gets to decide what are high crimes and misdemeanors? It's the legislature, right? A supreme court justice doesn't get to vote on impeachment at all, let alone his own impeachment.

In theory, the legislature has all of the political power since it can impeach anybody. In practice of course it is difficult for a legislature to muster the strong consensus required to act. And ultimately, the legislature is answerable to the people through the electoral process.
 
Suddenly said:
I'm highly critical of the present Court, but there has to be some allowances for people that just don't agree with you without crossing into this sort of despairing implications of illegitimacy . Rending one's garments at every conservative decision from a conservative court cheapens the outrage at something that is true garbage in any light, like Bush v. Gore.


Keep in mind that conservatives thinking along the lines of your post is the reasoning behind what is going on in Kansas. They don't see it as violating the living crap out of the horizontal separation of powers, rather as stopping a judicial body that they see as not doing their jobs properly.

Hopefully the Kansas Court stands fast, and the resulting mess will at least be interesting. My guess is it eventually ends with something like a 7-2 vote (Thomas and Alito dissenting) holding that the guarantee clause is both justiciable and requires an independent judiciary free of such directed funding threats. In the end, if nothing else, judges tend to circle the wagons when the power of the judiciary is at stake.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS is not involved at this stage, nor do I think it ever will be. The legislature is clearly within its power to decide on a budget for the judiciary. Even if the linkage of the budget to the continued existence of another law is considered an unseemly act of bullying, it's still perfectly within the legislature's power. The remedy for such bullying is political, not judicial. If people don't like it, they can vote their legislators out.
 
sunmaster14 said:
SCOTUS is not involved at this stage, nor do I think it ever will be. The legislature is clearly within its power to decide on a budget for the judiciary. Even if the linkage of the budget to the continued existence of another law is considered an unseemly act of bullying, it's still perfectly within the legislature's power. The remedy for such bullying is political, not judicial. If people don't like it, they can vote their legislators out.
Click to expand...

Tangent: I have been thinking of a post about separation of powers and a knee jerk assumption that it implies a more copacetic situation than actually exists. This argument that the legislature is limited in impeachment is part of that. If I put it up I would like you to post in it.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
The Kansas situation is discussed in the Times article, not the Kos diary (though Kos has done one on it as well). The Times article includes links to original source material, including the American Bar Association article about the manoeuvre:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...ing_off_court_funding_if_courts_strike_down_2

and

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...s_if_law_on_selection_of_chief_judges_is_over
Click to expand...

You should have posted these links in the first place. Why post a link to the Daily Kos on a skeptics forum?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom