• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill threatens to defund Kansas judicial branch

Somerville

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,855
Reaction score
8,331
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
When ya got the power, ya tend to use it - and disregard yer state constitution, 'cause it's only a bunch of paper with words on it.

Bill threatens to defund Kansas judicial branch

TOPEKA — Kansas lawmakers are threatening to cut off all funding for the judicial branch of state government if the Kansas Supreme Court strikes down a law enacted last year spelling out how chief judges in the district courts are selected.
<snip>
Both last year's bill and the one being considered this year would contain a "non-severability" clause, meaning if one part of the bill is struck down by the courts, the entire bill, including its funding provisions for the courts, would also be struck down.
Click to expand...
Article 3 of the Kansas Constitution gives the Supreme Court, "general administrative authority over all courts in this state."

The Lawrence Journal-World has a few words to say on the subject, with what I think is a very appropriate headline
Budget Blackmail?

Blackmail is a strong word, a word that Kansans certainly wouldn’t want to have attached to actions of their elected state representatives. And yet, that word comes dangerously close to describing the approach some members of the Kansas Legislature are taking toward the bill that funds the state’s judicial branch.

Last year, legislation that tied funding for state courts to several policy changes was passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Brownback. Among those changes were provisions that removed the Kansas Supreme Court’s authority to name chief judges and oversee budget allocations in the state’s district courts. Proponents called the shift a matter of local control, but opponents, including some state judges, saw it as a possible violation of the Kansas Constitution which says, “The supreme court shall have general administrative authority over all the courts in this state.”
Click to expand...

For those 'conservatives' and 'libertarians' who have supported Kansas in recent days, as its governor has led a charge into the fantasy world of Austrian economics and "reduced government regulations", what do you say in regards to this apparent attempt to negate the "separation of powers" enshrined not only in the Kansas Constitution but also in the US Constitution?
 
Sometimes judges just get in the way. Why not just get rid of them when they rule against your favor?
 
Just when I thought Kansas could not find a new even deeper end to jump into...
 
Somerville said:
When ya got the power, ya tend to use it - and disregard yer state constitution, 'cause it's only a bunch of paper with words on it.


Article 3 of the Kansas Constitution gives the Supreme Court, "general administrative authority over all courts in this state."

The Lawrence Journal-World has a few words to say on the subject, with what I think is a very appropriate headline


For those 'conservatives' and 'libertarians' who have supported Kansas in recent days, as its governor has led a charge into the fantasy world of Austrian economics and "reduced government regulations", what do you say in regards to this apparent attempt to negate the "separation of powers" enshrined not only in the Kansas Constitution but also in the US Constitution?
Click to expand...

I have to say I understand the feelings and positions of the Kansas legislature in this regard. Here in Canada, we've watched our Supreme Court strike down bill after bill enacted by our parliament, most if not all highly supported by the public, and watching a dozen or so pompous asses thwart the will of the people is pretty annoying. That said, the actions taken by the legislature in Kansas to potentially defund the courts is in my opinion wrong and counter productive. It only serves to make the courts appear reasonable and victimized.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I have to say I understand the feelings and positions of the Kansas legislature in this regard. Here in Canada, we've watched our Supreme Court strike down bill after bill enacted by our parliament, most if not all highly supported by the public, and watching a dozen or so pompous asses thwart the will of the people is pretty annoying. That said, the actions taken by the legislature in Kansas to potentially defund the courts is in my opinion wrong and counter productive. It only serves to make the courts appear reasonable and victimized.
Click to expand...

the judicial branch has gain to much power in my opinion. the bigger issue is that it is no longer blind but interjects their own bias opinions into their rulings.
half of these rulings anymore deal with feelings rather than law and logic.
 
ludin said:
that was FDR and Obama's way of doing things.
Click to expand...

FDR tried but failed to 'pack' the Supreme Court. Obama has done nothing of the sort and it is the Republicans in Congress who have attempted to force their particular views on the other levels of the federal court system by blocking a greater number of appointees than for any other President.
 
Somerville said:
FDR tried but failed to 'pack' the Supreme Court. Obama has done nothing of the sort and it is the Republicans in Congress who have attempted to force their particular views on the other levels of the federal court system by blocking a greater number of appointees than for any other President.
Click to expand...

no he did pack the supreme court that is why we have the screw you deal. the previous court ruled most of it unconstitutional.

as they should because if you look at the issues with Obama's picks they are all ideologues over justices. they put their personal opinion above what the law says.
why do you think he put two more liberal judges on the DC court of appeals? because the previous one kept shooting him down and ruling against him.

the problem is that the judicial branch has gained to much power and more power than they were supposed to have.
 
Somerville said:
FDR tried but failed to 'pack' the Supreme Court. Obama has done nothing of the sort and it is the Republicans in Congress who have attempted to force their particular views on the other levels of the federal court system by blocking a greater number of appointees than for any other President.
Click to expand...

Failed?

How do you think that the commerce clause got bastardized CONVENIENTLY AT THE SAME TIME when FDR wanted to ban/regulate the living **** out of as many guns as he could?
 
Jefferson once reminded the SCOTUS that he had a standing army at his command and they had bupkis. Marbury never got his seat after all.

And the OP is incorrect. Though the Kansas constitution does grant the judicial the power to administer their department, it also grants the legislature the sole power to fund (or not in this case).
 
"if you look at the issues with Obama's picks they are all ideologues over justices. they put their personal opinion above what the law says."

As it is with whoever is in power. They all try to pack the courts and most judges end up being ideologues.

So what else is NOT new?
 
Somerville said:
FDR tried but failed to 'pack' the Supreme Court. Obama has done nothing of the sort and it is the Republicans in Congress who have attempted to force their particular views on the other levels of the federal court system by blocking a greater number of appointees than for any other President.
Click to expand...

He didn't fail, the court reversed the decisions finding a good portion of the New Deal unconstitutional and FDR dropped the court packing in exchange. And that's precisely what the legislature is supposed to do, be very selective as to judicial appointments. That is their ONLY check on the power the judicial has taken.
 
KeeKee said:
"if you look at the issues with Obama's picks they are all ideologues over justices. they put their personal opinion above what the law says."

As it is with whoever is in power. They all try to pack the courts and most judges end up being ideologues.

So what else is NOT new?
Click to expand...

What's new is the idea that "judges end up being ideologues". That wasn't supposed to happen.
 
clownboy said:
Jefferson once reminded the SCOTUS that he had a standing army at his command and they had bupkis. Marbury never got his seat after all.

And the OP is incorrect. Though the Kansas constitution does grant the judicial the power to administer their department, it also grants the legislature the sole power to fund (or not in this case).
Click to expand...

Why are conservatives and those who label themselves 'libertarian', so often ignorant of history? I can read the "Leaning" but I can also make judgements in regards to political leanings by simply reading the comments people post.
 
FDR "failed" at packing the court, in so much that the THREAT of packing the court caused the Court to change direction in the fashion he wanted, leading him not to have to carry out his threat.

It's like saying a Mob Thug "Failed" to beat a shop owner up because the shop owner gave him the protection money for this month after the mobster threatened to break his leg.

All of which is kind of irrelevant to the fact that it's absolutely ridiculous that someone in the state legislature of Kansas is even threatening the notion of defunding the courts there.
 
clownboy said:
He didn't fail, the court reversed the decisions finding a good portion of the New Deal unconstitutional and FDR dropped the court packing in exchange. And that's precisely what the legislature is supposed to do, be very selective as to judicial appointments. That is their ONLY check on the power the judicial has taken.
Click to expand...

Historical ignorance often leads to poor decisions. Personally, I and many others, see FDR as "failing" in his quest to change the nature of the SCOTUS

FDR's Losing Battle To Pack The Supreme Court

. . . troubling to Roosevelt was the fact that none of the justices had been appointed during his first term — and most of them had served for well over a decade.

In addition, Shesol says, an idea was floating around street corners and editorial pages that the Supreme Court shouldn't necessarily have the last word on constitutional matters.

"Some suggested that Congress ought to be able to overrule the Supreme Court," he explains. "By a two-thirds vote, Congress should be able to overturn any ruling of the Supreme Court, essentially making Congress the last word on the Constitution and not the Supreme Court."
Click to expand...
There are those who today are promoting the same concept.

Roosevelt's idea was that for any justice over the age of 70 who refused to retire, the president could appoint a new justice to sit beside the current justice and do his work.
<snip>
When Congress and members of Roosevelt's administration found out about the president's idea, they did not react well.

"Remarkably, John Nance Garner, who was Roosevelt's vice president, went back with him to Capitol Hill, stood in the well of the Senate and, as the plan was read aloud to the senators, Garner held his nose and gestured thumbs down,"
Click to expand...
 
ludin said:
the judicial branch has gain to much power in my opinion. the bigger issue is that it is no longer blind but interjects their own bias opinions into their rulings.
half of these rulings anymore deal with feelings rather than law and logic.
Click to expand...

That exact same thing, the whole "half of these rulings anymore deal with feelings rather than law and logic" could be said essentially since the first Supreme Court decision ever.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I have to say I understand the feelings and positions of the Kansas legislature in this regard. Here in Canada, we've watched our Supreme Court strike down bill after bill enacted by our parliament, most if not all highly supported by the public, and watching a dozen or so pompous asses thwart the will of the people is pretty annoying. That said, the actions taken by the legislature in Kansas to potentially defund the courts is in my opinion wrong and counter productive. It only serves to make the courts appear reasonable and victimized.
Click to expand...

What you call "thwart the will of the people" I call "upholding their oath, and the constitution."
 
clownboy said:
What's new is the idea that "judges end up being ideologues". That wasn't supposed to happen.
Click to expand...

You people only call them ideologues because they don't conform to your ideology. You want them to be ideologues. Just on your side.
 
Deuce said:
What you call "thwart the will of the people" I call "upholding their oath, and the constitution."
Click to expand...

Depends on your point of view and your reading of their oath and the constitution. Canada's courts are different than yours, but often no less intrusive and self-serving.

As an example, our Supreme Court recently ruled that a mandatory 3 yr sentence for possession of an illegal handgun and a mandatory 5 yr sentence for a second such offense, was too restrictive on judicial discretion and too punitive to offenders. They fabricated an unrealistic and never experienced scenario to support their position. Those in opposition to the majority, including the longest serving and most experienced/knowledgeable in criminal law, called out the majority for their fantasy ruling. The majority wasn't looking at the law or the case before them. In fact, they let the sentences against the two defendants who challenged the law stand while at the same time striking down the law - that's insanity and the ruling of a power hungry group determined to govern, not just adjudicate.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Depends on your point of view and your reading of their oath and the constitution. Canada's courts are different than yours, but often no less intrusive and self-serving.

As an example, our Supreme Court recently ruled that a mandatory 3 yr sentence for possession of an illegal handgun and a mandatory 5 yr sentence for a second such offense, was too restrictive on judicial discretion and too punitive to offenders. They fabricated an unrealistic and never experienced scenario to support their position. Those in opposition to the majority, including the longest serving and most experienced/knowledgeable in criminal law, called out the majority for their fantasy ruling. The majority wasn't looking at the law or the case before them. In fact, they let the sentences against the two defendants who challenged the law stand while at the same time striking down the law - that's insanity and the ruling of a power hungry group determined to govern, not just adjudicate.
Click to expand...

Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

That is certainly thought-provoking, to say the least! Basically they have just said "we're striking down the law today, but since you dared to open your mouth and challenge it yesterday, you're guilty so we're going to let our verdict stand, since we know what's best, you troublemaking rabble-rousers!"

Welcome to 1984! It seems Orwell was right, just ahead of his time! :afraid:
 
polgara said:
Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

That is certainly thought-provoking, to say the least! Basically they have just said "we're striking down the law today, but since you dared to open your mouth and challenge it yesterday, you're guilty so we're going to let our verdict stand, since we know what's best, you troublemaking rabble-rousers!"

Welcome to 1984! It seems Orwell was right, just ahead of his time! :afraid:
Click to expand...

Good morning Lady P,

Nice and sunny here but a lot cooler the last couple of days compared to last weekend. Hope your new plants aren't getting the frost treatment at night these days.

Have fun and enjoy your day.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good morning Lady P,

Nice and sunny here but a lot cooler the last couple of days compared to last weekend. Hope your new plants aren't getting the frost treatment at night these days.

Have fun and enjoy your day.
Click to expand...

I had to bring a few baby plants inside the past few nights, since they're still in their grow pots, but the ones already planted in the garden are on their own. I hope the old saying "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is true, otherwise I did a lot of work for nothing! :2mad:

It was 46 degrees this morning and overcast - quite a change from the high 80s we've been enjoying lately! Confusing to plants and humans alike. I haven't been outside yet this morning to check on the garden - but looking out my kitchen window at the deck area, I see the line of rhododendrons are taking their turn showing off, and they're gorgeous! :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom