In a debate that was probably seen by about 17 likely primary voters (it aired at 8:30 am on Sunday morning of Labor Day weekend), Martha Coakley agreed with Charlie Baker that, even if the people vote to repeal the casino law in November, it might still make sense to allow a casino to go forward in Springfield.
Republican gubernatorial hopeful Charlie Baker was the first candidate to suggest he would pursue legislation to build a casino in Springfield if Question 3 passes, and Coakley has said she’d also be willing to listen to the case for a western Massachusetts casino.
“If the voters say overturn casinos, that’s the law of the Commonwealth. That should stay the law. Let’s not undermine the democracy for which we fought for for hundreds of years,” [Steve] Grossman said.
Coakley responded: “The voters in Springfield voted for it under the statute. That’s democracy as well.”
I’m sorry, but Coakley’s comment makes zero sense. None. The people of Revere and Everett both voted for a casino too. Why should their votes count for less than those cast in Springfield? Either the local votes trump the will of the people statewide, or they don’t.
Furthermore, under federal gaming laws, if casino gambling is legal anywhere in the state, that could open the door for Native American tribes to open casinos on the South Coast, on Martha’s Vineyard, and potentially elsewhere. There is no way to enact a “Springfield only” law.
Now, I recognize that Coakley’s comment was made in a debate, apparently in a colloquy with Steve Grossman, and maybe she was just speaking off the cuff. Still, people running for Governor should make sure they are clear on the consequences of what they are proposing. Especially when what they’re proposing involves flouting the will of the people.
Someone didn’t read about the Nullification Crisis in her con law class.
Not during the debate – no one saw that – but MassLive reported on it.
So Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker are on the same side when it comes to defying the will of the electorate, that’s good to know. Coakley supporters, come on over to Berwick! He’s really much, much better than Martha.
Springfield voted to have a casino with the understanding that there would be three of them.
Steve’s position makes MORE sense, but I see Martha’s point (I think). Springfield wanted a casino, they have probably planned on getting one, it’s not quite fair to undo that.
But it’s fair enough for me, I’m voting for repeal.
let’s say that Everett gets the Gaming Commission’s nod for the Boston license (there were, after all, some other contenders for the western license early on – it’s not like Springfield was always the only applicant). Why doesn’t this argument:
applies with equal force to the Boston license winner?
I’m not sure I can defend an argument when I don’t fully understand it. My interpretation is speculative.
I will say that Martha has reinforced her previous position, which seems to be “The repeal should simply not exist.”
Martha Coakley likes casinos because Bob DeLeo (and his cronies) like casinos, and she wants his political support. She thought she had an opportunity to take a shot at blocking the referendum and she seized it. The opinion of Massachusetts voters, or the question of what’s good or bad for the state, have little nor apparent influence on her stance.
This is the same Martha Coakley we’ve seen acting this way for as long as she’s held public office.
affect gubernatorial elections? Who knew?
She challenged the ballot question. She says casinos would not be her first choice for revenue. She acknowledges the serious problems casinos bring and says the state must be vigilant in addressing them. She says she will not vote to repeal (in language that seems to be based around “let the people decide”). And now this.
I really don’t know where she stands on casinos. Does she actually have a position? Or is she answering like a lawyer being asked by a client “what’s possible?” rather than taking a stance on what should be done.
Whatever the true stance, it’s not the kind of leadership I want to see in a Governor.
It’s depressing that she doesn’t have to give a clear position on this important topic during the primary. Her opponents can’t force one from her, debate moderators don’t, and no one in the press is covering substantive issues in the campaign. And the public doesn’t care – for which having debates Sunday mornings of a holiday weekend certainly is not helping.
I really don’t know how Coakley manages this. It’s masterful work. Unfortunately, it will likely only work in a Dem primary.
But, then again, maybe a true position on casinos won’t be necessary in the general, either. Given this statement, her position seems closer to Baker’s than anyone else’s, so maybe casinos won’t register in the Governor’s race.
It’s hard to see what the real policy difference would be between the two. Maybe transportation? Baker has real weakness there. Unfortunately, Coakley’s position seems to be “invest in,” “support,” and “promote” without identifying a single revenue source. I can’t imagine anything Charlie Baker would like better than asking Coakley “how are you going to pay for it?”
Martha Coakley has repeatedly said that “casinos area not my first choice” for economic development in Massachusetts and yet she will not personally vote or urge her supporters to repeal the decision to allow casinos in Massachusetts.
I have a question for Martha Coakley. If casinos are not your first choice, what is and why is it that you will not use your knowledge, leadership, and political skills to deliver your first choice to communities like Springfield? As our next governor, why would you prefer to give Springfield what you yourself consider second best?
I’d love to see Coakley answer questions like that on a number of issues. I’m not going to hold my breath, though.
Coakley has been all over the place when it comes to casinos. She pulled a bag job for the gaming industry in trying to keep casinos off the ballot, a ruling the SJC all but openly mocked when it overturned her. She’s rattled the sword about consumer protection when suddenly casinos started losing on a bunch of local ballots, apparently remembering what her job is. Now she’s pandering by offering up a Springfield exception if the casino law gets overturned at the ballot.
I disagree profoundly with Grossman on the casino issue, but I’m not worried he’s playing the issue for cheap political points or that he’s being maneuvered by gaming lobbyists. Coakley seems likely to make a mess of the gambling situation no matter how Question #3 fares in November. I fear we could be in for an epic amount of corruption.
I for one would prefer to assume that just MAYBE, Coakley really was acting in good faith as Attorney General when she ruled on the legality of the question. So the SJC slapped her down, but only because they are the appellate body. If the SJC got first crack and she got to overrule them then it wouldn’t be on the ballot. I suggest not including her ruling as AG among the variables to determine her personal position on the merits.
What is the point of speculating about an impossibility? The SJC does have the final say, and what they said was that Coakley’s decision was risible. If you’re right that it was in good faith, it doesn’t speak well of her legal acumen. Also, why on earth wouldn’t we factor in her trying to block the referendum? It was either pandering to the DeLeo faction, or just bad legal judgment. Either way, it’s relevant.
I’m saying that if the process were the other way around the narrative would be that the AG schooled the SJC. It was her judgement in her official capacity. She could have made it even if she personally thought casinos were bad.
You didn’t need a JD to spot the Callahan Tunnel-sized hole in her ruling. The SJC simply acknowledged the obvious.
I don’t understand why you’re saying it. If batters could overrule umpires, there would be a lot more runs scored. If your students could overrule you in the classroom, things would be very different. None of these things are real situations, so there’s no useful purpose in talking about them, unless you want to write a Twilight Zone episode, or something.
…to point out that there is not necessarily objective truth in this. They are all trained lawyers, and neither is party to the question. Coakley could easily be an SJC member, and one of them could easily be AG, but that would not change their professional judgement. Batters are parties to the game and students do not have the level of expertise of the teacher, both of which make those situations different from this one. She used her judgement; the SJC used theirs; the latter prevails only because the Constitution says so.
that by pushing this line of argument you are losing credibility points?
If there was even one SJC member who voted the other way, you might have some sort of argument here that this was simply a judgement call, but that is simply not what happened. Coakley was flat out wrong.
It was a strong rebuke no doubt, but we still have to assume that Coakley was executing her duties to the best of her ability and in good faith.
Either Coakley acted in good faith and did a terrible job of interpreting the law or she acted in bad faith and tried to derail the casino question before it hit the ballot. The ruling was absurdly poor in both cases. It was a legal faceplant.
In terms of which scenario is preferable, I think I’d pick malicious recklessness over abject incompetence.
She acted in good faith and the SJC, also acting in good faith, disagreed.
She earnest put her incompetence on display. Good intentions don’t absolve her of the wretched legal ruling she made. I mean, I’m sure Bill Buckner wanted to field Mookie Wilson’s groundball. However, good faith didn’t get the ball into his glove.
Buckner objectively missed, but even then a mistake doesn’t make one incompetent. Coakley made a decision with which the SJC disagreed.
This is the court of public opinion we are talking about here. There is no presumption of innocence. There is absolutely no reason we should automatically assume that all politicians are always acting without an ulterior motive. In fact, experience would suggest that it would be foolish in the extreme to make such assumptions.
I default to the side of the benefit of the doubt. It is how I would want people to treat me so it is how I treat others – basic Golden Rule. Until I hear her on tape telling casino backers that she will take advantage of her legal role to keep the question off the ballot in exchange for their support for Governor or something like that I will stand by that assumption.
I’m afraid he was talking about you, Christopher. The entire history of politics is one of deceit and self-interest. Ignoring that in favor of some kindergarten ideal is not going to serve you well. I believe that there are decent and honest people in politics, but all the evidence is that they are a minority, and I assume a given politician is not one until she demonstrates clearly that she is. Coakely has never so demonstrated, and given her many opportunities to do so, it’s not likely at this point.
Some people obviously have very different assumptions, particularly given the fact that her decision came out of the blue.
When parties submit, they ask for thoughts and opinions on their language ahead of time and the AG’s office has historically given it.
The Repeal movement *thought* everything was kosher going in, despite showing their language early and asking for guidance, and was blindsided.
Despite the fact that the won in the end, it placed a legal cloud over their efforts and forced them to raise big bucks for to wage a legal battle instead of spending all that time and energy on the actual campaign.
To be frank, if Repeal loses, Coakley will be one of the biggest reasons why. She did everything in her power — including laying a giant surprise — to stop them.
It’s enough that I think we need to reform our referendum process to strip away decision making power from the AG’s office, or at least create a few weeks leeway for organizations to fix language that’s rejected.d
Are you actually trying to suggest that there is an arbitrary equivalence between Martha Coakley and seven SJC judges who ruled unanimously against her? How could that possibly be switched around? We all know that her run for Governor makes this a political issue for her, not just a legal one. How does that apply to the SJC? What is the SJC’s secret vested interest in seeing a repeal amendment?
There is no way around it. Coakley’s judgement was grossly wrong. She clearly either has big holes in her understanding of contract law or she went against her own better judgement as part of some political miscalculation. Either way, I can’t help but lose a lot of respect for her.
…which all of them are, and Coakley’s view may be the distinct minority. Both the AG and SoC have roles in determining the validity of ballot questions and it’s appropriate to have checks and balances on those roles. However, absent evidence to the contrary we should always assume that they came to their decision in good faith, and sentences that begin, “We all know…” do not satisfy that requirement.
There is not equivalence between lawyers and judges, or between attorneys general and judges. Judges get to tell lawyers and AGs what the law is, and lawyers and AGs have to accept that, unless they can get higher-ranking judges to disagree.
Whether Coakley came to her decision in good faith or not, it was a wrong one. Unless a Federal court overrules the SJC – which is really not a possibility – their interpretation of the law IS the law, and Coakely blew it.
but not objectively on the merits not necessarily. Yes, the SJC gets to overrule an AG in this process. However, Coakley also lost the buffer zone case before SCOTUS. Does that automatically make her legal defense of the law bad on the merits?
Unless you argue that our entire judicial process is broken, then your premise ignores the dramatic filtering that happens as an attorney moves from member-of-the-bar to judge to SJC member. All attorneys are NOT equivalent, if they were than judges and the SJC would be chosen by random lot.
The language of the SCOTUS decision on the buffer zone case was strikingly different from the language of the SJC decision on Ms. Coakley’s attempt to block the ballot question. Did you READ the latter?
Our judicial system goes to reasonably extreme effort to insure that only the brightest and best of our attorneys sit on the SJC. We then ask the SJC for its professional and legal opinion of various questions.
When that esteemed panel writes an opinion that is as unmistakably hostile towards a given party (so much so that lay people and even Globe reporters can recognize it), then it seems to me that there are only a few explanations:
1. The SJC is itself incompetent, corrupt, and undeserving of the trust we place in it, and whose opinion can therefore be ignored or discounted.
2. The AG who presented the case is utterly incompetent and unable to present an even remotely persuasive argument.
3. The AG who presented the case is a reasonably competent attorney who was asked to do the impossible (find a way to twist the facts into an argument for blocking the referendum).
You seem to argue alternative (1). My view is that the facts argue for (3) and then (2).
Definitely not #1 – they too acted competently and in good faith, but came to a different, and it happens controlling, conclusion. They are absolutely deserving of our trust, but…
…not #2 – she was unable to persuade the SJC in this case, but that does not mean she is incompetent, and…
…not #3, at least the second half – she doesn’t have to be asked to make a ruling; it’s her job, and her interpretation of the question was one that violated the constitution.
However, like you I find #3 most likely.
Do all lawyers have the same level of knowledge and skill in all parts of the law? Clearly not.
I really am mystified by the extent to which you strive to excuse incompetence or worse by elected officials.
The SJC didn’t just rule against her. They went out of their way to literally slap her down. The SJC opinion is memorable BECAUSE it is so caustic towards Ms. Coakley. The SJC clearly and unmistakably ruled that not only was she incorrect, but that she was embarrassingly, even incompetently so.
I am unwilling to exclude such a demonstration of either sheer incompetence or — more likely in my view — legal contortions performed in service of a demanding political ally (fill in the blank, Bob DeLeo, the casino industry, other Democratic Party officials, unknown major Democratic Party contributors).
I must say that I find myself wondering what is left — besides checking either the “Democratic Party” or “whomever I already support” boxes — after you rule out all the various things you choose to ignore.
…and thanks to the Constitution they prevail, but I have seen no actual evidence, your constant protestations about the party machine to the contrary notwithstanding, that Coakley came by her decision in anything less than good faith. The burden is on you to show evidence of illegal or unethical collusion with the casino supporters on Coakley’s part.
I agree that no one has any evidence that Coakley did anything illegal or unethical or even made this decision out of some sort of political calculation, but one does have to wonder how she could have been so wrong when she otherwise seems to be a fairly intelligent woman.
The conservative and sensible thing for here to have done is to simply have stepped aside and let the courts do their job on this issue. This was always going to end up in the courts ultimately and she knew that perfectly well. So why bother to get in the middle?
It is her job to rule on the legality of proposed questions before they can get on the ballot. Only once that decision is made can the dissenting side appeal to the SJC.
And given the absolutely horrible precedent this would have set if it had not been struck down, you would have thought that she would not have wanted to touch this with a ten foot pole. As I said, she absolutely knew that given the parties involved that this was going to be determined in the courts, not by her decision.
but if this were just a punt anyway why all the gnashing of teeth over what her ruling was? That seems to strengthen my argument that her decision shouldn’t be held against her.
He’s been advising the Coakley campaign and his firm is getting paid beaucoup bucks by the gaming industry. If Coakley did try to knife the casino question, then Rubin most likely was the political operative advocating the move.
Coakley became a very public politician not on the strength of her managerial skills as DA and AG, but by taking the public spot in highly publicized and controversial trials like that of British AuPair Louise Woodward in 1997 – and the refusal to free Gerald Amirault who had been horribly mistried and had his life destroyed by incompetent and over zealous prosecutors.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9710/23/crime.nanny/
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704281204575003341640657862
Voters would do well to remember the Amiraults before choosing their candidate in this Gubernatorial election.
her approach to problem solving. To come to a half baked solution she devices a mountain of regulations that would make Rube Goldberg proud. This Partners deal is not appealing as a model for proper governance.