Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/op...at/3607587001/

Sounds uncool, but the article I quoted seems to conflict with that, no? I don't know much about the News and the Free Press. Is one likelier to get this right?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sounds uncool, but the article I quoted seems to conflict with that, no? I don't know much about the News and the Free Press. Is one likelier to get this right?

https://courts.michigan.gov/Courts/M...estions-OP.pdf Time was the Free Press was dem and the News R, but the decision outcome is not something they'd screw up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

https://courts.michigan.gov/Courts/M...estions-OP.pdf Time was the Free Press was dem and the News R, but the decision outcome is not something they'd screw up.

Well, News said it was a 7-0 decision and Free Press said it was two 4-3 decisions, so either they are talking about different things or someone is wrong, is the way I see it. YMMV.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Well, News said it was a 7-0 decision and Free Press said it was two 4-3 decisions, so either they are talking about different things or someone is wrong, is the way I see it. YMMV.

dude, she used two statutes.

A 1976 statute was abused, as it required legislative authorization to extend after 25 days. I think she kept "restarting" as if new rather than seeking authorization. That was knocked down 7-0, not the statute, but her actions under it.

The 1945 statute was found unconstitutional 4-3.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

dude, she used two statutes.

Yes, that was my point. But you quoted a News article saying, "The governor ignored this statutory requirement, refused to work with the Legislature and plowed ahead anyway, continuing to unilaterally declare emergencies under the 1976 law." As if the other statute didn't exist.

Whatever, friend. On a day when the Republican politicization of the courts in is full swing and on public display, I don't particularly feel like ignoring that the Republicans have been packing and politicizing state and federal courts. YMMV. Is it hard to tell when a Republican court is acting on totally legit merits, and when it is acting politically? Yes, absolutely -- that is the point.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Yes, that was my point. But you quoted a News article saying, "The governor ignored this statutory requirement, refused to work with the Legislature and plowed ahead anyway, continuing to unilaterally declare emergencies under the 1976 law." As if the other statute didn't exist.

Whatever, friend. On a day when the Republican politicization of the courts in is full swing and on public display, I don't particularly feel like ignoring that the Republicans have been packing and politicizing state and federal courts. YMMV. Is it hard to tell when a Republican court is acting on totally legit merits, and when it is acting politically? Yes, absolutely -- that is the point.

The News piece was an opinion piece, and slanted. Right after the part I quoted it discusses the 1945 act. We agree, that was 4-3, but as to the 1976 law she did lose 7-0, so that part of the decision could hardly be slanted.

And for a governor elected by all of the people of the state to try to question the integrity of Supreme Court Justices, elected by all of the people, is silly. For one, even the "dem" Judges said she was acting improperly (under 1976), every single Judge. But, as important, a Michigan statewide elected R cannot be the loon that these fucks are in DC. We have had R govs recently. They are quite moderate. We've had an R Senator (a bit ago, but still). Moderate.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The News piece was an opinion piece, and slanted. Right after the part I quoted it discusses the 1945 act. We agree, that was 4-3, but as to the 1976 law she did lose 7-0, so that part of the decision could hardly be slanted.

True. But the Free Press article said she was claiming authority for her orders under the 1945 act, and that the court decided 4-3 that she did not have such power. So even if you assume that the 1976 law did not support her at all, it sounds like she had a decent case under the 1945 act for everything she was doing, in that the court would have upheld everything she was doing, on both constitutional and statutory grounds, if one judge had seen it differently. Thems the breaks.

And for a governor elected by all of the people of the state to try to question the integrity of Supreme Court Justices, elected by all of the people, is silly. For one, even the "dem" Judges said she was acting improperly (under 1976), every single Judge. But, as important, a Michigan statewide elected R cannot be the loon that these fucks are in DC. We have had R govs recently. They are quite moderate. We've had an R Senator (a bit ago, but still). Moderate.

Maybe you are lucky in Michigan, but the GOP has its share of wingnuts in state offices.