Seattle Times: "State gains steam in union case before high court"
The Supreme Court appeared ready Wednesday to reject claims that the First Amendment prohibits Washington state from forcing unions to get permission before spending some of the money they collect on political causes.A confusing lede, but it means that Attorney General Rob McKenna did a fine job of representing the people of Washington against the greedy goons in the WEA. In Justice Kennedy's words:
"States have considerable discretion in determining how to protect federal constitutional rights, It seems to me that Washington acted quite properly in saying we will use this mechanism in order to protect our workers' First Amendment constitutional rights."A complete transcript of the oral arguments is here.
More here.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 11, 2007 11:00 AM | Email This
"Say, WA?"
Posted by: Walters on January 11, 2007 11:37 AMIf not Governor or Senator, I hope he's AG of the USA sometime, or perhaps a federal judge.
Posted by: Cliff on January 11, 2007 11:45 AMPleading Document: "It's for the kids."
Oral Plea: "It's for the kids."
Posted by: Tyler Durden on January 11, 2007 12:13 PMAlito: But is the State Supreme Court in a position to determine why they voted for it?
McKenna: They simply hold, Your Honor, in their opinion that this is what the voters intended.
Alito: How do they know that?
McKenna: I don't know how they know it, Your Honor.
And neither does anybody else, Rob. It's like magic. The State Supreme Court determines voter intent right out of thin air ... well, as long as it fits their agenda of course.
You know it's bad for the WEA when Ginsburg, Ginsburg!, is asking WTF?
Posted by: jimg on January 11, 2007 12:46 PM"Lawyers for the state, backed by the Bush administration..."
It's as if Stephen Henderson's editor sent his rough draft back to him with the comment "You forgot to implicate Bush--how about inserting this?"
How stupid must the Times think their readers are?
Posted by: Organization Man on January 11, 2007 05:05 PMMcKenna performed badly enough the justices had to help him out with his argument repeatedly. They were tossing him softball questions and he was wiffing on them. It was painfully obvious when reading the transcript of the rebuttal part of his argument. And yes, I could have done better. The issue was very simple and had little to do with election law, as McKenna tried to emphaxize. This was almost exclusively a Fisrt Amendment case.
The WA SC is an embarassment. In the past few years, it has been reversed on a number occasions. It is rapidly becoming a state supreme court with a similar reputation as the US 9th Circuit.
Posted by: Don on January 11, 2007 05:12 PMMcKenna performed badly enough the justices had to help him out with his argument repeatedly. They were tossing him softball questions and he was wiffing on them. It was painfully obvious when reading the transcript of the rebuttal part of his argument. And yes, I could have done better. The issue was very simple and had little to do with election law, as McKenna tried to emphaxize. This was almost exclusively a Fisrt Amendment case.
The WA SC is an embarassment. In the past few years, it has been reversed on a number occasions. It is rapidly becoming a state supreme court with a similar reputation as the US 9th Circuit.
Posted by: Don on January 11, 2007 05:14 PMMcKenna performed badly enough the justices had to help him out with his argument repeatedly. They were tossing him softball questions and he was wiffing on them. It was painfully obvious when reading the transcript of the rebuttal part of his argument. And yes, I could have done better. The issue was very simple and had little to do with election law, as McKenna tried to emphaxize. This was almost exclusively a Fisrt Amendment case.
The WA SC is an embarassment. In the past few years, it has been reversed on a number occasions. It is rapidly becoming a state supreme court with a similar reputation as the US 9th Circuit.
Posted by: Don on January 11, 2007 05:15 PMMcKenna performed badly enough the justices had to help him out with his argument repeatedly. They were tossing him softball questions and he was wiffing on them. It was painfully obvious when reading the transcript of the rebuttal part of his argument. And yes, I could have done better. The issue was very simple and had little to do with election law, as McKenna tried to emphaxize. This was almost exclusively a Fisrt Amendment case.
The WA SC is an embarassment. In the past few years, it has been reversed on a number occasions. It is rapidly becoming a state supreme court with a similar reputation as the US 9th Circuit.
Posted by: Don on January 11, 2007 05:15 PMAre you talking about the same McKenna who claims the separation of powers doctrine bars the prosecution of a judge who commits a crime?
Posted by: Don on January 11, 2007 05:55 PMWay to go - ignorant voters who voted for the leftist incumbents You were gullible enough to believe that they care about you !
Groen and Alexander would have served you better - wonder if they will ever learn ?
Posted by: KS on January 11, 2007 07:20 PMAnd that's what you should be focusing on, Don.
Not the AG who's arguing the case.
I think you meant to write Groen and Johnson. Those two have only themselves to blame for losing their elections. They could have won by a landslide, but they were cowards.
Posted by: Don on January 11, 2007 08:24 PMHow were they cowards? I'm not sure I understand what you are talking too. Did they back down from debates or did they not meet you after school by the bike racks?
Posted by: Dengle on January 11, 2007 08:58 PMGroen and Johnson were cowards because they had proof that their opponents have committed violations of Title 18 US Code 1962 (c) and (d) - RICO, and refused to use that information. They both admitted to having the knowledge, but were more interested in protecting a corrupt judiciary than exposing it.
Want proof of it? Just go to the state supreme court web site and try to find any info on Case No. 77345-9- In re: Recall of Christine Gregoire. You will find nothing. If you read the case file, you would understand why the WA SC has hidden the very existence of the case. Good luck trying to find any published decision in that case, even if the Washington Constitution, the statutes and the court's own rules required that it be published.
Johnson and Groen were emailed copies of the briefs and the other most important documents filed in the case. I talked to both of them for an extended period of time, and they both recognized the significance of the case. They were not confused and they understood the implications if the judicial corruption was exposed.
Read the file. If you want, I can email the briefs to you. Ask yourself why they are hiding the case if it had no merit. the reality is, the facts are indisputable and the publication of the facts would bring down every member of the WA SC, Gregoire and McKenna. Explain to me why McKenna would claim that the separation of powers doctrine bars the prosecution of judges who commit crimes? I have that statement in writing from his office.
Posted by: Don on January 11, 2007 11:37 PMThanks for the context.
Did you ask them why they wouldn't bring this up?
Also, is this something that you can bring up or any citizen? Have you taken that to the papers or US Attorney? It would seem that your information would be a good story (well maybe not to the fishrags in this city :-)) and something that our government attorney would want to know as well.
Maybe you can also do a full post on it in the SP Public Blog.
Posted by: Dengle on January 12, 2007 07:49 AMFrom what I read, Don's argument had merit, but I don't think it had enough proof.
Posted by: swatter on January 12, 2007 08:15 AM