Taking Eyman to Court: Lawmakers to File a Lawsuit Today Challenging the Constitutionality of the 2/3 Majority Requirement

Comments

1
Well written, and fuck that guy.
2
i bet his next initiative bans lawsuits against initiatives. fuck that guy.
3
I'd like to add my own fuck that guy.
4
Don't blame Eyman, blame your idiotic fellow voters, who vote against tax increases and then complain about cuts to their services. Sucks to be a slog reader, but the rest of Washington deserves its regressive tax structure.
5
I like how the TSA sends operatives to infiltrate peace groups and look for "terrorists" but still has yet to arrest this fuck, who has been visibly and actively terrorizing the state since before it even existed.

ERRATUM: for "like" read "rage like a right-winger with a tax rate over 0% at".
6
If the majority truly believes that the initive is in violation of the state Constitution - then they should disregard it and let Eyman mount the court challenge.
7
"have really hampered our requirement to do our consitutional duties. We can’t fund education the way we should, the justice system, the safety net"

There's no state constitutional requirement to create a 'safety net', ie. welfare state.  Sorry fellas. Want to give $$ welfare to baby mamas, illegals and trailer trash? Start a charity.

"fuck that guy."

And the 2/3s of voters, 57% of King County, who voted for I1053? My, you must hate democracy and many of your neighbors. 

I love how much you folks hate democracy when it goes against your wishes to (mis)appropriate private property and hand it out to your supporters.
8
Technically, you can not amend the State Constitution without a mandatory super-majority of both the House and the Senate OR a super-majority of the Voters Duly Formed As A Constitutional Amendment.

Which means Eyman will lose.

... that said, a 2/3 majority requirement of the Voters to renew any tax exemptions would be fine. Provided it was formed as a Constitutional Amendment from the get go.
9
oh, and I'd like to third it: Fuck that guy.
10
And since when is having state workers on defined benefit pensions Vs. Defined contribution Plans a constitutional requirement?
11
"Which means Eyman will lose."

Like he didn't last time.

Thanks for playing Will. Always fun watching you folks continually lose these fights.
12
You'd never know the state budget increased by $2 billion this year.
13
The clear language of the state constitution says it takes only simple majorities to pass bills, with no exception given for taxation bills, and no power granted for that constitutional limit to be raised via the initiative process.

The framers were clearly thinking Majority Rule back then, but we know from history that activist courts can rule contrary to clear language from the framers. The danger of this lawsuit is that the state supreme court is composed of 9 ELECTED judges, and they could be swayed to overlook the framers' intent and decide that Yes, indeed, the initiative power can be stretched far enough to supercede the clear language of the constitution they are sworn to preserve, protect, and defend.

Fear of voter retribution can color the court's interpretation. This lawsuit could end up enshrining Eyman's devilishness into constitutional law for many years to come.
14
As a consitutional question, the State Supreme Court could opt to hear a challenge after it hits Superior Court, but the article is correct - even expedited in this manner, there would not be a ruling that would affect this legislative session.

Oh yeah, and fuck that guy and every idiot who voted for this in the first place. Assholes.
15
"Fear of voter retribution can color the court's interpretation"

Why fear democracy?
16
@15, "This lawsuit could end up enshrining Eyman's devilishness into constitutional law for many years to come."

It's enshrined now.

This takes guts and bravery to bring this lawsuit in the current climate of douchebaggery. Those lawmakers deserve a high five.

Oh, and fuck that horses ass.
17
"Fear of voter retribution can color the court's interpretation"

I hate it too, when our government fears the people. What an awful state of affairs.
18
"current climate of douchebaggery"

You mean when 33% of the population wants to confiscate the property of others? I always thought the opposite would be douchy.

WA state will never accept an income tax. Move to CA if you want to get taxed stupid.
19
You can't indirectly change the state constitution ... You have to either declare it as a constitutional amendment or it's invalid.

Crying about your inability to get the 2/3 majority approval of House, Senate and then Voters or the 2/3 majority approval of Voters and then the subsequent change is the fault of those who don't grok the difference between an initiative and a constitutional amendment.
20
@3: hey, hey, hey...no more talking of fucking that guy. He might enjoy it.
21
@4 It doesn't have to be either/or. It's perfectly acceptable to blame both.
22
@20: Clearly he does, based on how active he has been in these comments.
23
@20 - mental image in my head, ick ick ick.
24
To the Carbohydrate Sperm Donor (aka Sugar Daddy):

First off, lay off the state workers!!! There is NO OTHER group in this state that has suffered/sacrificed more for this state's budget woes! Second, I would really like it if the extreme right wing whack-jobs would get an education and realize that government and its services aren't actually free... they do cost something. We aren't going to get out of this mess by only cutting spending. We must raise revenue!

And let me add: Fuck that guy!
25
To the Carbohydrate Sperm Donor (aka Sugar Daddy):

First off, lay off the state workers!!! There is NO OTHER group in this state that has suffered/sacrificed more for this state's budget woes! Second, I would really like it if the extreme right wing whack-jobs would get an education and realize that government and its services aren't actually free... they do cost something. We aren't going to get out of this mess by only cutting spending. We must raise revenue!

And let me add: Fuck that guy!