Multiple news outlets have reported that the Michigan Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision upheld the democratic party “independent/grassroots” Voters Not Politicians petition initiative to create a non-partisan commission to redraw every voting district in Michigan.
In writing for the majority Justices Viviano, McCormack, Bernstein & Clement said;
“Here, that approach leads us to conclude that a voter-initiated amendment under Const 1963, art 12, § 2 is permissible if it does not significantly alter or abolish the form or structure of our government, making it tantamount to creating a new constitution.”
Yeah that’s sounds great on paper, but exactly how did they intend on accomplishing this nigh impossible feat?
{Well, I’ll go into that more after the fold}
According to VNP, they intend to create an “independent citizens commission” made up of four republicans, four democrats with five “independents” rounding out the group chosen at random from registered Michigan Voters.
These commission candidates will be “vetted” for their party allegiance via their returned application and where they reside within Michigan. The “major” parties will be able to block up to five candidates each.
If I were a betting man (oh wait!…I am), those are pretty damn good odds if you want to stack the deck in your party’s favor. All you need to do is groom at least one person to say the right things so that people think that they are something which they really aren’t.
I mean, what can happen? Right?
Politicians would NEVER, EVER do that!
And, I don’t know about how readers feel about this, but how many regular Michigan Voters have the time to pour through all of the graphs, charts and tables in order to create voting districts throughout Michigan that will be acceptable to everyone voting here in Michigan?
I can just see the line of people forming up right now to get onto this commission if this wins in November.
Granted this story had a lot of interesting backstory leading up to it. None of it good.
The Michigan League of Women Voters released some damning e-mails that went back and forth between various members of the Republican Party apparatus and the previous commission charged with creating districts. One such piece of damning input came from Jack Daly, former chief-of-staff for US Representative Thaddeus McCotter, when his FOIA-accessible emails caught him stating:
“In a glorious way that makes it easier to cram ALL of the Dem garbage in Wayne, Washtenaw, Oakland and Macomb counties into only four districts. Is there anyone on our side who doesn’t recognize that dynamic?”
And I’m absolutely certain that there aren’t democrats who feel the same way were their roles reversed.
Now we all know why Hilary’s server went “missing”.
Justices Viviano, McCormack, Bernstein & Clement have certainly opened Pandora’s Box with this ruling.
Their ruling politely danced around the troublesome matter of exactly how they intended this petition to be carried out in a truly objective fashion.
And, it’s not as if there will be repercussions in future Michigan Elections when (not if) this proposal heads south…and it will.
OABTW, Stay tuned for the outcome of the 2018 Republican State Party Convention to be held at the Lansing Center later this month.
Hey, is that Justice Elizabeth Clement I see on that short list of candidates to be nominated?
I’m certain that there will be no big surprises when that comes up for a vote.
(16)Nuh Uh.
(3)
This and the School gun issue.. We have some house cleaning to do at convention.
League of Women Voters??? Never forget that Carrie Chapman Catt, was a Clinton, and like Hillary, also a lesbian- Carrie’s furball’s name was, Mary “Mollie” Garrett Hays.
August 18, 1920 was a monumental victory for the commie loving Progressive Left.
The VNP initiative is horrible, but a horrible initiative isn't unconstitutional just because it's horrible. Did you actually read the 100+ page opinion and dissent, or are you just criticizing the majority because you oppose VNP?
I certainly didn't post the relevant section of the court opinion above simply by just blindly stumbling through it.
Considering it’s in the conclusion, it’s possible that’s all you read (which, to be fair, isn’t that uncommon... I mean, if you want to find a quick summary of the opinion, that’s a good place to look). So again, did you read the whole thing? If so, in what way(s) do you think the majority’s opinion was flawed?
It's in the conclusion?!?
Did YOU actually read the opinion?
Hint: you're not even close to where I pulled that specific section!
Now, onto your other question. Re-read that part again pertaining to significantly altering. You're beginning go from a simple amendment into Con-Con territory, which is significantly beyond its original selling point.
Second, tell me how anyone can definitely ascertain the political philosophy of an unknown?
Case in point: Candidate Rick Snyder claimed that he was Pro-Life. Nothing in Gov. Rick Snyder's record corroborates that.
There is no mechanism to go back to 2010 and drum him out of office for lying.
Unless you have something comparable for the "independent" members of this comission, how do you propose undoing their actions when they're caught lying?
Whoops?
Sorry?
It won't happen again?
That dog won't hunt.
Interesting, isn’t it? After all these years passing for time to mature dInks remains a Finley fellating phaggot. Sad!
It is in the conclusion... it's the third to last sentence.
https://imgur.com/J5eIl2i
And I disagree that it's anything approaching a revision; it's a straightforward, narrowly tailored amendment that addresses redistricting.
As to ascertaining the political philosophy of an unknown, I agree, and that's one of the MANY reasons I'm voting against it; however, that has nothing to do with whether it should legally be on the ballot.
Yeah, third to the last sentence...ON PAGE 65 of a 121 PAGE RULING.
I DID link to the actual ruling at the top of this post for a reason.
As to the Constitutionality question, quickly off of the top of my head you'll need to make fundamental changes to at least the following: Art 1, Sec. 5, Art 6, Sec 13, Art 9, Sec 11, & Art 11,Sec 1.
You can't do that with a simple ballot initiative, which only covers one item only. Anything over that falls into Con-Con territory.
It’s in the “Conclusion” section of the majority opinion... not sure how you’re actually questioning that. The label “Conclusion” is literally a few lines above.
And of course you can have an initiative that covers one issue but impacts multiple sections and articles; it’s still only addressing the issue of redistricting, as opposed to a broad reform like RMGN tried to do.
It doesn’t make a fundamental change to Art 1, Sec. 5. And I’m not sure how you think it impacts the school aid fund. As for the oath provision, that’s been settled law since 1935.
Look, if you cannot be bothered to read the entire ruling, then this conversation isn't going to be very productive. The answers to you questions are already contained within it.
Did they even tolerate this lack of prep when you studied law at Wayne?
You're capable, or at the very least SHOULD BE, capable of finding the relevant sections in the decision. w/o requiring me to hand-hold you through the entire process Mr. Inks.
Botton line: this case smacks of pure politics like the Sebelius & Obergefell SCOTUS rulings.
And political decisions come with repurcussion at the ballot (or maybe sooner on the.convention floor).
I read all 121 pages the night it was released... the majority opinion and both dissents (and the syllabus).
You were either caught in a lie or are feigning ignorance for some reason. The fact of the matter is that it is in the conclusion. It is literally labelled at the top of the paragraph. You can be as condescending as you want, but the fact is that you’re the one who’s either unable or pretending to be unable to identify where the text came from.
And this is the opposite of a purely political decision; why would a justice as conservative as Justice Viviano author the majority opinion if it was for political reasons?
Claiming that my citing of a section that was in the middle of a decision somehow concludes that I skipped whole sections in front of and behind, strains all credibility, Mr. Inks.
And regarding your politics comment...of course politics plays out into court decisions. It's ridiculously naive to even suggest otherwise.
Look at just how often the Ninth has their cases overturned?
Look at how Burger Court literally pulled a decision out of their anal database using this justification:
"The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras..."
Do you remember reading anything pertaining to the concept of "penumbras" in the Declaration of Independence? Articles of Confederation? US Constitution? How about the Federalist Papers?
Now, as to why would Viviano go over to the dark side on this case?
I'd venture a guess that it would be similar to why Roberts performed olympic-level legal gymnastics in order to uphold Sebellius. I'm of the strong opinion that if he did side side with opinion to strike down VNP's case, that it would make the court look bad in the eyes of the public.
Mob Ruledemocracy prevails!If courts actually applied the law, vis-à-vis citing the relevant sections of our Constitution or previous court cases that have done likewise, there shouldn't be any need to hear appeals from lower courts.
We both know (or at least should) know differently.
I didn’t conclude that. I was unsure so I asked if you had read it; instead of giving a straight answer, you gave a sarcastic answer that didn’t clearly indicate whether or not you had read the entire decision, and that’s what led to this long conversation. Be honest, most people who aren’t attorneys who complain about court cases haven’t read the cases.
Ahh, the false narrative about the “nutty Ninth”. From a percentage basis, the Ninth isn’t even the most overturned. But yes, the entire existence of penumbras reasoning in American jurisprudence was certainly one of the low points In the nationa’s legal history.
As for Justice Viviano’s reasons for his opinion, he’s never struck me as someone who bases his decisions on how it’ll impact the Court’s image. He’s always struck me, quite similarly to former Chief Justice Young and current Chief Justice Markman as someone who truly votes based on how he views the law. For the most part, I think most of the current justices do a good job of that—even Justice McCormack (although I disagree with her judicial philosophy more often).
This, the school gun issue AND straight ticket voting--ALL IN ONE WEEK. The insanity continues.. .
https://mobile.twitter.com/ndinks/status/728029341100191744
Lzozozozlzozlz. #SoyBoy
https://mobile.twitter.com/ndinks/status/773287742742618112
It actually melted my gheydar detector.
lzozozozlzozlz
And now we have gidget McCormack as chief, and vacuous Viviano pro tem.
Embrace the suck....
Oh, don't even get me started on that imbecile!
And, no, I don't mean McCormack.