- The Supreme Judicial Court today rejected the efforts of those who wanted to force the health care amendment onto the ballot despite the legislature’s refusal to vote on it (thereby killing it). The Court acknowledged that the legislature had a constitutional duty to vote on the amendment — a duty which they failed to observe — but that the courts lack the power to force the question onto the ballot:
The only remedy provided in the Constitution for the failure of a joint session to act on an initiative amendment lies in the hands of the Governor. Of course, a further remedy lies with the voters at the next election when they decide who will represent them “agreeably, to the rules and regulations of the constitution, and the laws of this Commonwealth.” The relief sought by the plaintiffs, however, would address the violation of a constitutional duty (the duty to vote) by one branch of government, by means of an order of the court that both supplants the remedy specifically provided for in the Constitution and directs that another constitutional requirement be disregarded. This cannot be done consistently with the doctrine of separation of powers embodied in art. 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
- Among the ongoing significant changes at the Globe, one that was announced today stands out: business columnist Steve Bailey is leaving by April 1. I haven’t always loved Bailey’s work, but there’s no doubt that he’s a major presence on the Boston business scene, and he’ll be missed.
- I still can’t get over this Spitzer business. Really, what an idiot.
You mention the SJC’s ruling, but you don’t take a position on it, David. Not so long ago you were encouraging the GC to refuse to perform their Constitutional duty. Do you still feel the same way, that the end would have justified the Unconstitutional means?
is such a wild distortion of my position on the whole “process” issue that it’s really not worth my time to respond to it.
What distortion? Laurel was advocating for what the SJC said today was Unconstitutional. You responded by saying “I’m with you.” Am I misreading something?
<
p>Does that just refer to the Governor’s power to call the legislature back? Isn’t it too late for that?
<
p>I thought I understood this.
Am I to understand that there are those that are are now decrying that expedient policy? Which way do you want it?
Just the way that it suits you?
look no farther than voteonmarriage.org, who were noisily indignant that the legislature didn’t vote on the anti-marriage amendment. it was all about legislators upholding their solumn duty to the constitution, they said. and yet,VOM was largely silent on the subject of the legislature failing to also vote on the health care amendment. apparently VOM figured that the legislature’s duty to the constitution stopped at the edge of VOM’s interest. further, VOM never explained why they didn’t care about an amendment that would help get people insured. kinda makes you wonder where their priorities are, doesn’t it? it’s orgs like VOM that give christianity a bad name.
of having it both ways on this issue, on both (all?) sides.