Jackson Free Press

Gov. Haley Barbour told us all that the Mississippi Supreme Court would overturn the lower court decision requiring him to follow statute in scheduling the special election to replace Sen. Trent Lott, and he was ... drum roll ... right. His statement today:

"This decision by the State Supreme Court means that a million Mississippians will vote on who will be their next United States Senator. As I said from the beginning, having this important election on November 4, 2008, is in the best interests of the state, the voters, and all the people."

Not to mention, the party of him and most of the elected Supremes.

Here's a PDF of the decision. Folo has a funny post in response.

Previous Comments

ID

98302

Comment

Shocking. (I'd laugh at how funny this is, but I don't have the energy).

Author

C.W.

Date

2008-02-06T20:51:01-06:00

ID

98303

Comment

There's a funny thread about the MSSC's, er, strict constructionism over at DailyKos. I like the comments about hoping that Graves has a bright future here. Us too; us too. Oh, and a Millsapian beats up on an Alabaman for going smug on us. Go on now.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-06T21:21:17-06:00

ID

98304

Comment

Yep, the good ole boyz say "jump," and the Mississippi Supreme Court flies off a building. Sigh. It's all part of the big picture, whichis becoming clearer by the day.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-06T21:22:42-06:00

ID

98305

Comment

If this ain't 'legislating from the bench', I don't know what the hell is. Well, er, yes I do: it's bullsh!t.

Author

Kacy

Date

2008-02-06T22:01:37-06:00

ID

98306

Comment

One interesting comment made by LeftHandedMan on DailyKos: The next time a wingnut pundit brings up 'out of control judges' this is the sort of thing that should be thrown in their faces. See Donna's link about the strict constructionism for more comments.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2008-02-06T23:01:57-06:00

ID

98307

Comment

These folks are dangerous. It is the same warped, unfair, unjust criminal activity that got us involved in Iraq. These are people in high places making low-life decisions for the mass. Since when was breaking the law predicated on COST? Barbour is just another Slick Rick and should be thrown out of office. MS continues to allow certain Governors to practice DICTATORSHIP.

Author

justjess

Date

2008-02-07T11:31:01-06:00

ID

98308

Comment

Well hell, all elections are costly. Let's save a boatload of money, and never have another one again!

Author

kate

Date

2008-02-07T11:32:47-06:00

ID

98309

Comment

And, if only there were another election cycle, coming up in, say, March. Something that would get voters out... Like, I dunno, a freakin' presidential primary. When we will all be voting, and polling stations will be set up, with poll workers and everything.

Author

kate

Date

2008-02-07T11:34:37-06:00

ID

98310

Comment

Justice Randolph's opinion ignores the most obvious rule of textual interpretation: you don't let the exception swollow the rule -- because if that's what the author(s) wanted, they would have reversed the text and stated the exception AS the rule. Mississippi has three general elections every four years. According to the Miss. S.Ct., anytime a Senator resigns within twelve months of one of those elections, the Governor can set the election date for the next general election.

Author

GenShermansGhost

Date

2008-02-07T11:54:26-06:00

ID

98311

Comment

What is sobering to me is that we live in a state where the machine operates in such plain view, and they think we're too stupid to do anything about it. I mean, Barbour told us weeks ago confidently that the Supreme Court would overturn the lower court and give him his way. Did any of us doubt that he was right? We should doubt it, but the fact that we didn't shows how blatantly compromised the Mississippi Supreme Court is. Folo now has a post analyzing this decision a bit more. Some good and funny stuff there. It's nice to read another blog that isn't controlled by partisans.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-07T12:24:32-06:00

ID

98312

Comment

BTW, Sherm, can you e-mail me?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-07T12:25:22-06:00

ID

98313

Comment

If this isn't legislating from the bench, what is? Justice Chuck Easley, who joined with the majority and wrote a concurring opinion, said he sees no reason to have a special election in March because it would place an undue financial burden on taxpayers. "Furthermore, an expedited special election is not fair to the voters or the candidates," he wrote. "Mississippians deserve better." So, Justice Easley re-interprets the law to get Mississippians what he (and Barbour) believe they "deserve." Conservatives? Strict constructionists? They really do think Mississippians are morons. For the record, I think the election in November will probably help Democrats, the way things are going nationally. But clearly the Repubs on the MSSC do not. Either that, or they just do whatever Barbour tells them to do. "OK, Chuck, jump!"

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-07T16:23:44-06:00

ID

98314

Comment

OK, here's another surprise. The corporate daily that endorsed Frank Melton, and George Bush (for *re-election*!), and repeated Barbour's claims about his company ownership without question—that corporate daily thinks the above Supreme Court decision was fine and dandy. (Marshall Ramsey doesn't, though.) And an aside: their re-design sucks too badly to even comprehend. I can't even maneuver the site to find stuff to criticize; I just give up after a couple of tries. It is the dumbest site organization I've ever seen. And half your clicks don't take you where you want to be. Lord.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-08T10:33:52-06:00

ID

98315

Comment

What is sobering to me is that we live in a state where the machine operates in such plain view, and they think we're too stupid to do anything about it. Too stupid or too powerless? I am so disgusted by the result, I haven't been able to bring myself to read the opinion. All I want -- all most people want -- is a fair judicial system. With everything that has happened just in the past *three* months, it is clear Mississippi doesn't have one. The sad thing? People of all political persuasion are playing this game. I guess corruption, coercion, and "my way is more important than the right way" are universal . . . just hope there are enough of us to continue to shine the light on the darkness. Newt

Author

Newt

Date

2008-02-08T11:15:55-06:00

ID

98316

Comment

I agree with you, Newt. Keep seeking the light.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-08T11:17:41-06:00

ID

98317

Comment

I really don't see the difference if the election is in March or Nov. Why are people getting their panties in a wad over this?

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-02-08T11:49:21-06:00

ID

98318

Comment

I don't really care which one it's in, either. My knickers are crunched before the Mississippi Supreme Court is playing partisan politics by re-interpreting law on Barbour's behalf—ironic for a party that whines all the time about judges taking liberties.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-08T11:53:41-06:00

ID

98319

Comment

For starters BubbaT, the decision goes against the grains of the LAW. Still another issue is Barbour's appointment of a Republican who will have and 11 month free publicity ride at the State's expense. This is an unfair advantage for others running for the seat - Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green Party or whomever. Marshall Ramsey has about the best understanding I've seen in a very long time. He sums it up in picture. I'm still laughing; however, it is another sad day for Mississippians.

Author

justjess

Date

2008-02-08T12:32:29-06:00

ID

98320

Comment

I am neither a lawyer or a judge, but from reading the pdf of the decision, I understand that the Nov date is ok under the law. I may be wrong but that is just how I interpet it. If Hood thought the Supreme Courts decision was still against the law, why didn't he appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court? As for Barbour appointing a Republican to the seat for the next 11 months, do you really think there was a chance he was going to appoint a Democrat, even if it was for a just a week? Whoever he appointed is going to have an advantage. Even if it was just for 90 days or 11 months.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-02-08T13:02:07-06:00

ID

98321

Comment

If Hood thought the Supreme Courts decision was still against the law, why didn't he appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court? Good question, Bubba T. The U.S. Supreme Court doesn't hear cases about State law, though. So there's nothing else that Hood can do.

Author

GenShermansGhost

Date

2008-02-08T13:31:15-06:00

ID

98322

Comment

No, BubbaT, I didn't expect him to "appoint a Denocrat." I think you missed the obvious, I expected him to follow the law and have the election in March which would have beeen the time frame the law dictated. At some point, you must cut your losses. I think this was Hood's decision not to take it any further. It has also been our experience that the further up you get in dealing with these Judges who have been put in place by Republicans - the more likely the laws are bent. Just saying.

Author

justjess

Date

2008-02-08T14:29:49-06:00

ID

98323

Comment

Well there is surely something that voters can do if MS is ever going to get off the bottom of the pile and that is to stop being fooled by Barbour types.

Author

justjess

Date

2008-02-08T14:37:57-06:00

ID

98324

Comment

justjess Mississippians aren't dumb they know full well what they are doing when they vote for the barbour types he represents the good ole boy interest that still thrives and lives on in MISS to this day.

Author

NewJackson

Date

2008-02-08T15:03:52-06:00

ID

98325

Comment

That's true, New Jackson, although I don't think the Democrats presented much of an alternative. The amazing thing is how Barbour has added to the power of the Governor's office . . . for almost the entire history of Mississippi, the Governor has been a figurehead, far weaker than the Legislature. Barbour has shown how that can be reversed.

Author

GenShermansGhost

Date

2008-02-08T15:08:24-06:00

ID

98326

Comment

I think he did follow the law. The Supreme Court interpeted it the same way as I did when I read the statute in the Miss Code. I just don't think it that big of a issue when the election is held or that the Supreme court back Barbour. It's a done deal now anyway.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-02-08T15:25:26-06:00

ID

98327

Comment

The Supreme Court interpeted it the same way as I did when I read the statute in the Miss Code. Then, that settles it. I guess we can assume you're not something who would ever complain about a court that re-interprets laws and legislates from the bench, right, Bubba?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-08T15:48:57-06:00

ID

98328

Comment

Nope, I complain alot about what the courts do. The courts have always re-interpted law and legislated from the bench. I don't think that will ever change. How can it?

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-02-09T01:41:41-06:00

ID

98329

Comment

You're both right. It's an ambiguous statute and the MSSC is hopelessly compromised by electoral politics. In defense of Barbour and the MSSC ruling, ambiguous statutory language tends to favor the executive branch for the same reason that ambiguous contracts tend to favor the employer or client. This is true regardless of party affiliation, so Barbour had good reason to be confident of the MSSC ruling's outcome. If Hood had appealed to the USSC, he would have no doubt faced the same outcome. I'm not sure I wouldn't have ruled the same way, looking at the statute alone. There was a general state election in 2007; there was a general federal election in 2008; and the statute clearly states that the 90-day rule applies "unless the vacancy shall occur in a year that there shall be held a general state or or congressional election." Lott retired right after a general state election, in the final weeks preceding the year of a congressional election, so it's not really hard to understand why the MSSC ruled the way they did. A November 2008 election is consistent with the statute. That said, I have no idea why the hell we have an elected Supreme Court. That's just asking for trouble.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-02-09T01:59:52-06:00

ID

98330

Comment

Scratch my last post (it looks like the moderation filter flagged it anyway for some reason); I just read Graves' dissent and he makes a strong point regarding the definition of "year" in the Code. BubbaT, if you haven't already read Graves' dissent, I recommend it. It's the last section in the PDF document above.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-02-09T02:12:12-06:00