The court should take note of the plain language of the Constitution and the settled law concerning negative phraseology it is obliged to respect under the legal principle of stare decisis. The court should take note of the history of this provision as debated at the 1889 constitutional convention, and of the full context of the Constitution in which various majority thresholds are specified no less than 74 times. (Actually, far fewer than this, but I'm following the Seattle Times' lead in relying on my readers to be too lazy to look up the actual figure for themselves.) The court should take note that when the authors intended supermajorities they specified supermajorities, and that when they wanted to establish a mere floor they specified it as such.
The court should take note of all these things in coming to its decision. But it most definitely should NOT take note of either the policy implications of I-1053 or its popular support!
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
All right wingers hate America. do they support the rights of all Americans to join a union? Do they support the Constitution when it protects the accused from the state? How many are Veterans? Do they support Veterans benefits? Do they support health care for all Americans?
The right wing hates America, all of the Patriots are on the left and its time they started saying so.
So...basically we should do away with the supreme court? Is that what they are saying? Because if we blocked the supreme court's rulings based on popular vote of legislation's constitutionality, why not just have popular vote.
Someone appeals a conviction? Vote on it! The people of the state are clearly well informed, just ask Bruce Danielson.
Here is the same shit from 5/31
If the Court rules 1053 and its predecessors are unconstitutional, then the Republicans will try to float a constitutional amendment (2/3rds vote, then sent to the people for a vote). That would probably be a go, because of the Republicans' ability to train voters that taxes are bad.
So either way, the non-wealthy people of the State of Washington will be screwed, forever.
It will be gone in ten years tops. Just bide your time.
Hoist the bastards with their own petards.
There is no greater tyranny than taxes imposed on the middle class by centrists who back scratch and log roll in a never ending escalation of revenue seeking.
It is only right, fair and just that this most home felt invasion of privacy and personal liberty...tax...be applied with only the fullest consensus of all sections of society.
Gerberding is a fucking roadmap for overturning I-1053, and if this case gets past the justiciability bullshit, that's exactly what the court will do.
Goldy's legal acumen is a bit better than most non-lawyers.
Did I say that old people are wingnuts? No.
I did say - and statistics will back me up - that older people tend to read newspapers, and younger people tend not to. Especially mediocre papers like the Seattle Times.
Older people have a tendency to be called home to Jesus more frequently than younger people, which means less current customers, and fewer new ones.
You do the math, dear.
I'm okay with the court doing so, because I think the precedent is clear and the intent was there. However, that's not what the "plain wording" says.
Mother Vel-DuRay is a Roosevelt Democrat: she'd sooner have the itch than watch Fox News, yet she subscribes to the "Omaha World-Herald" - which makes The Times look like "The Socialist Worker" -and "The Council Bluffs Nonpariel". She reads both of them, and is a big fan of the letters-to-the-Editor page (which can be a surreal experience). It's just what people of that generation do. When she wants her kind of politics, she turns on Ed Schultz.
Hers is the only house in that affluent-for-there neighborhood, smack dab in stupid country (her Congressman is Steve King), that subscribes to the papers. The W-H is down to 24 pages, and The Nonpareil might as well be an ad circular with obituaries.
Her sister, Auntie Marilyn Vel-DuRay, has a computer and is stridently liberal (think "Maude" with a walker). She also takes the World-Herald and reads the whole thing. She also looks at lefty blogs and watches Rachel Maddow.
So my point is not that old people are conservative, but that a dying medium is being kept on life support by it's elderly subscribers, many of whom read them out of habit (and, sadly, to see who of their friends have died). The Times has a dwindling subscriber base that skews elderly, and I suspect that not many of them read the editorial page. Mention a newspaper endorsement to the average young person, and they will give you a blank look. More and more, editorials and endorsements exist for a small group of people to either flatter or scold another group of people while the rest of us go about our business. As their subscriber base dwindles, so does their influence.
No contradiction there.
The Seattle Times is threatened for a host of reasons related to its practices and the transformation that was wrought by cable television and the internet.
The latter being most influential - not because we can get better journalism online, but because an essential source of advertising revenue has been lost.
The Seattle Times has a problem with a guy named Craig.
.Just look at a Sunday Times now compared to ten years ago. There's probably half the regular advertising there once was, including the big box circulars.
And Goldy, is the Times' pro-gay marriage campaign and endorsement of Obama also evidence of how they hate America? Or did those things somehow escape your attention?
The plain language and settled law are at odds. The settled law says "negative phraseology should be considered positive limitations". The plain language is that various majority clauses set floors, not ceilings.
I repeat: I think the precedent is clear and the intent was there [to set a floor and ceiling]. However, that's not what the "plain wording" says.
Goldy: sorry, but that is a lame response. Who said they should be given a free ride? They shouldn't. But you write that they "hate America" in the middle of their gay marriage campaign and a day after their endorsement of the President. You should be able to explain that.
A simple answer to a simple question.
And of course, what could be more American-hating than undermining the rule of the law?