Will a John Valentine disbarment proceding come next?
Did everyone read yesterday's editorial piece in the Salt Lake Tribune yesterday, wherein the President of the Utah State Bar, V. Lowry Snow, takes GOP dipshit Senator Chris Buttars to public task for a nasty letter he wrote under State Senate letterhead to a sitting Utah District Court judge, attempting to intimidate him, labeling him a "liberal activist judge," because of a judicial decision he made earlier this year, ruling against a Buttars crony?
We'll resist the tempation to launch our own analysis on this, and once again refer our readers to the most-excellent Third Avenue blog, where once again the blogmeister thoroughly digests and analyzes the latest developments in this story.
Betcha five bucks that Senate President John Valentine, a Utah Lawyer who buried this problem in the legislature for at least two months -- if not six months or eight months -- is getting even more pointed non-public letters from the Utah State Bar.
Once again we wonder... when will it occur to Utah Republicans that Chris Buttars needs to be kicked to the curb?
And will Senator John Valentine be ultimately disbarred for his active acts of concealment of Senator Buttars' egregious misdeeds?
So many questions... so few answers.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
10 comments:
One can only hope.
I feel a huge shake up coming this November in the State Legislature.
It doesnt matter if they are replaced by Demo's or Republicans, as long as we get some more honest legislators into office.
I concur with the idea of replacing long-serving legislative persons.
It seems the longer one is in, the harder it is to see the perspective of the regular folks. Speaking of which, judges are in for life and so are the longest serving of them all, and are usually, the worst of them all.
BTW Curm, you have said that the courts having struck down a given law is proof that the law is unconstitutional. Would you tell me then, in the Constitution where can I find the place that says that the courts can strike down laws passed by Congress? It shouldn't be too hard. The document is short, and you are well versed in it as you know.
And for a good editorial that's been getting a lot of buzz, on yet another subject
Click Here
What do you think about Rep Neil Hansen's brother, Bill Hansen. The Deputy Sherff and former businessman.
Is he running for State Senate, against Christiansen?
Danny:
Ah, you are a literalist. But the Constitution does not mention separation of powers. Yet no one doubts that separation of powers is a fundamental Constitutional principal. Nor does it mention checks and balances. Yet no one doubts they were intended as integral parts of the new constitutional order either.
In our system, the Constitution means what the Court says it means. This is not specifically stated in the document, but it is clearly implied. There must be a final determinant, when there is a dispute about the meaning of the document or whether a law is constitutional or not. If the decision about constitutionality is left to the individual states, the end result must sooner or later be dissolution of the Union. We saw that in 1776 and again in 1861.
Is it possible for the court to rule wrongly? Sure, many think so, though they cannot agree on which decisions were wrongly decided. But unless and until the Court reverses itself, which it does very very rarely, its decisions determine the meaning of the document when that meaning is disputed. No other body can do that... not Congress [which would be sitting in judgment on its own actions if it decided constitutionality], not the states [which could decide things differently in every state, and could refuse at will to obey federal law if each state decided constitutionality.
True, that is not how it is done in the British system. But then, the British do not have a written constitution, and we do. We do, because the rebels had lived under English government in which there was no written constitution, and they thought it wise to get it all down in writing so that all might read it. Construing the document when a clause or paragraph was disputed, then, had to be left to the Supreme Court, because with a written constitution no other body in the government could possibly have rendered a final decision on the matter in dispute.
No one doubts "separation of powers?" Am I no one? Is something true because all your associates say it is?
The Constitution clearly does not give the Supreme Court the power to invalidate laws.
It does not mention "separation of powers."
It does not say we have "three separate but equal branches."
This is all BS that is taught in our schools.
It DOES say that the Supreme Court shall have such appellate power as the CONGRESS shall decide, making the Supreme Court totally subordinate to the Congress! Imagine that! Just the opposite of what everyone thinks.
So I'm a "literalist" because I read the document?
So never mind the Constitution, let's let judges decide?
And we fought a revolution for this?? To replace rule by one elite aristocracy wearing purple robes with another wearing black ones?
Danny:
If you're going to argue that separation of powers and checks and balances are not fundamental elements of the US Constitution, because the terms do not appear in the document, then we don't have a whole lot to discuss. If you read the debates in the Federal Convention, and the letters of the delegates, and what they wrote about the new document as they tried to convince people of its merit, you'll find them referring to those ideas --- separation of powers and checks and balances --- again and again. And describing them as fundamental safeguards built into the document to prevent the abuse of power by the new national government. Sorry, but I'm afraid I'll have to take the testimony of Hamilton, Madison, Jay and the rest as conclusive on this.
The whole point of life time tenure was to remove judges from the pressures of a momentary impassioned majorities so they could render judgments dispassionately and without fearing the consequences of their judgments personally. To suggest, as you do, that the founders intended to put determining the meaning of the constitution exclusively in the hands of the elected Congress flys in the face of very nearly all the evidence. Their fear about doing anything like that is plain from the extraordinarily difficult procedure they built in for amending the Constitution. And from the ratification debates that took place all over the country and in the ratification conventions the followed the Philadelphia convention.
Hey Curm, is this emphasis on the personal political leanings of Judges, and potential nominees a new thing, the stacking of the court for political purposes? This seems to be the Republican mantra, and we've witnessed quite a few attempts to just put a political lackey in there.
I know about Andrew Jackson's distain for Marshall,and total disregard for his courts rulings, but I don't view that in the same light.
Nice one-sided history lesson, Curm.
Pity the poor devils didn't put any of your opinions in the actual Constitution. Personally, I like what they did with the document itself.
That's where people like you are left with - selective references to speeches and letters. But let's not read the Constitution itself, right?
The things I said are not in the Constitution are NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. These are modern constructs that dilute our freedoms.
People will quote newspaper clippings all day, but nobody reads the Constitution anymore. If they did, they would be surprised what's in it.
And contrary to your misrepresentation, I did not say that interpretation of the Constitution lies only in the hands of Congress, but that the Supreme Court is entirely subordinate to Congress as stated in the Constitution.
The proper interpreters and enforcers of the Constitution are "We, The People".
Danny:
You wrote: That's where people like you are left with - selective references to speeches and letters. But let's not read the Constitution itself, right?
The things I said are not in the Constitution are NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. These are modern constructs that dilute our freedoms.
Sorry, Danny. Ignoring the debates at the federal convention, ignoring what the members said it was they were doing, and why at the time, ignoring the debates over ratification and what the founders said in them about what they had done and why, seems to me still a not very sound way to arrive at the framers' intentions and the meaning of the document they drafted.
Post a Comment