Posted on 06/08/2009 7:39:30 PM PDT by Maelstorm
In the interest of full disclosure, I worked for Mark once upon a time. So the personal endorsement is that he is a good man and deserves the benefit of the doubt. As an attorney, I think I should also say that when the court says he has no choice, then good government requires he sign the thing. It is not healthy to foster a constitutional crisis, and I think Mark deserves credit for standing tall in a very difficult environment. Not many have put their back to the wall in the way Mark has, and staked their reputation in court for a conservative cause, so you all should cut him some slack here. For myself, I am proud to have worked for him, and would be proud to do so again. So Mark, if you’re reading this, lo these many years later, thanks for the opportunities, and keep giving them hell! You have a lot of people who know you well and believe in you.
Especially a State Supreme Court that has only 1 alleged Republican member.
-PJ
The application for the funds.
The very real consequence of being booted out of office and into prison sounds like a gun to me.
I think that there is a time to ignore judges, as we seem to have no other option. The idea that a judge has said it, therefore it is right, is not correct.
Sure, this leads to problems, like the infamous Jacksonian response. The question of when this is a valid tactic and when it is not is tricky and prone to abuse. Then we will need another check for this, I suppose, but it may work out. Perhaps the legislature can step in with funding issues?
The courts lack executive power, and the true executive should at times decide not to enforce their orders.
Terri Schiavo comes to mind.
Courts sending officials to schools to make sure that they follow decisions, rather than waiting for an actual complaint to them, also comes to mind (ever heard of a court enforcing a visitation order in such a manner?)
It is more than time that people begin to say to the courts that they are wrong and will not be followed.
Food for thought:
http://www.acuf.org/issues/issue110/080621news.asp
The question is, is this the time? I’m not sure we’re to that point yet and that is a slippery slope. If Sanford ignores the judges’ ruling, what if other Dem governors start ignoring rulings they don’t like, ones that we feel they should follow. Its surely something you don’t do lightly.
Sure it can, and it just did. The legislature has the power to draft the budget, and it can order the executive to spend money. You're watching it in action.
Co-equal branches of government is a clever turn of phrase, but in point of fact, it's nonsense. In the federal government, and the states that I'm familiar with, the legislature holds all the cards.
"I would describe myself as a strong fiscal conservative that lean towards social conservativism on many issues."
Now THAT'S funny.
you wrote**Sure it can, and it just did. The legislature has the power to draft the budget, and it can order the executive to spend money. You're watching it in action.**
Thats why I believe the governor wants his cake and eat it too...he didn't have to sign anything. but has political cover by complaining..
hope I am making myself clear, if not I will try again :O)
Some of these courts think they are a 9 headed king or dictator...some need to smacked down...
You're describing what happened here. The legislature passed the budget. The governor vetoed it, and the legislature overrode the veto. Then, to top it all off, the Supreme Court of South Carolina issued a writ of mandamus to Sanford ordering him to apply for the funds.
In short, "no" wasn't an option for the governor, unless he was looking forward to jail and impeachment.
If the legislators over road his veto, why was his signature even necessary? Does the state constitution give the judges this right?
The override of the veto was on the budget, which directed him to use stimulus money. His signature, as I understand it, was on the application to apply for the stimulus money from the feds.
Give judges what right? The right to issue a writ of mandamus? I doubt it’s in the SC constitution, but it’s a common law writ that has been around since probably the magna carta.
The governor was just out of options. Sometimes you lose. That’s just the way things go.
As I expected this is being unfairly used to bash Sanford by ignorant forces.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.