Quote:
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.
Quote:
|
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.
