Jackson Free Press

 
As a storyline that's already seen car chases, nation-wide manhunts and a cameo by the Antichrist, it's fitting that the next installment of the Mississippi Pardongate saga featured a dramatic courtroom scene.

Today, the Mississippi Supreme Court heard arguments from Attorney General Jim Hood, lawyers for former Gov. Haley Barbour and minimum-security inmates who worked at the governor's mansion.
 
Hood convinced a Hinds County judge to temporarily block the pardons and commutations of some 200 former felons, many violent offenders, to determine if felons had complied with a constitutional provision to notify the public of their pardon. Last week, the state Supreme Court stepped in, and this morning, the two sides made their cases to the full panel of the Mississippi Supreme Court.
 
 It wasn't long into the presentation of Tom Fortner, lawyer for four former governor's mansion trustys, before justices began pressing Fortner on his claim that the Barbour pardons are not open to judicial review. The governor can reach into prison and pardon whomever he wants, Fortner said.
 
"I'm not arguing that you don't have any judicial review. I'm arguing that judicial review ends if the pardons are valid on their face," Fortner said.
 
Charles Griffin, Barbour's attorney, followed Fortner and made a similar argument: "The governor's decision is simply not open to judicial review."
 
Justice Michael K. Randolph asked Griffin whether files on the mansion inmates have surfaced, to which Barbour's lawyer responded that the mansion inmates never requested pardons. Rather, Griffin reiterated what Barbour himself has consistently said, which is that the pardons were based on living files based on Barbour's observations.
 
Lawyers for several other pardonees who remain in prison also spoke for about five minutes each.
 
Matt Steffey, a professor of constitutional law at Mississippi College, said the governor has the authority to interpret, apply, or waive the publication provision for pardons, and no one has a legal right to challenge them.
 
"The governor can pardon--for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all," Steffey told the Jackson Free Press Wednesday night.
 
Given the publication requirement has never been raised until now--which includes during Hood's entire tenure that began in 2004--Steffey said it's hard to interpret Hood's actions as "anything but political."
 
When Hood began his presentation, he hadn't spoken long before the justices began challenging the AG on his interpretation of Section 124 of the Constitution, that pardons are invalid until an application is made.
 
One justice asked whether Gov. Phil Bryant could have pardoned Edwin Hart Turner before his execution unless Turner published for 30 days. Hood maintained that Bryant could have commuted Turner's sentence because commutations aren't subject to the 30-day requirement.
 
 Several justices asked Hood about his office's involvement in securing the pardons. Barbour has long held that David Scott, an assistant attorney general, advised Barbour's office on the pardon process; Hood countered that Scott advised Barbour's people to look at the Constitution.
 
"David Scott, he's just conveying the messages back and forth," Hood said.
 
Chief Justice William Waller Jr. said no decision will be made from the bench today.
 
As of 11 a.m., the hearing was still going on. Check http://www.jacksonfreepress.com later today for updates.