Missing the point
The media who are writing about the pending lawsuit over the meaning of Oregon Measure 113 are getting it wrong. They keep reporting that the soon-to-be-expelled Republican rebels in the state Senate are arguing that the measure is "ambiguous," or "wasn't written clearly."
Quite the contrary! The senators' argument, which I tried to explain here, is that the text of the constituional amendment made by Measure 113 is unambiguous, and clearly written – so unambiguous and clear that there's no need to look at anything else to see what the voters intended. (Unfortunately for them, every other document surrounding the ballot measure says something different from what the amendment text itself says. Whoever did the drafting should be fired.) The question is:
[W]hat should control, the plain meaning of the sentence that was actually added to the Constitution, or the contradicting language in the ballot title and summary?
Will the wayward boycotters prevail? I wouldn't bet on it. But their argument has a lot to be said for it. If you simply pulled out a copy of the current Oregon Constitution and looked at what it says, they would clearly win. For them to lose, the state Supreme Court will have to read the three words "following the election" right out of what the voters passed. Then again, stranger things have happened.
Whatever the merits of the arguments on this may be, it would be nice if the reporters would state the issue correctly. I remember when news organizations actually had lawyers writing for them. Good times.
I’m so old, that I remember a class room civics lesson that said the Bill of Rights was to prevent a tyranny of the majority.
ReplyDeleteNow we have tyranny of a cult
DeleteYou know if the Dims would actually care about the rest of the state and not be so G-damned careless with the budget, the Reptiles would not have to take such extreme moves.
ReplyDeleteThe Republican Party is all about selfishness, and lately, hate. Most people in Oregon don't want that. Maybe if the righties would tone it down a bit, they'd get further.
DeleteSilly me. I thought traditional values were a good thing.
DeleteThe last Republicans with values that were part of a good tradition were probably Ford and Dole.
DeleteI actually have reassessed Nixon.
DeleteCompared to what's going on today, Nixon was Gandhi.
ReplyDeleteI have thought he may have been the last Republican President who tried to be a leader for all Americans not just the ones that voted for him. He had issues though personality wise.
DeleteAre there any justices on the Oregon Supreme Court that do not owe their appointments to the public employee unions that bankrolled M113?
ReplyDeleteIt's a one-party state. But I don't see the justices as politicized. They just don't want to make waves, for whatever reason.
ReplyDeleteThe Court's politicization reaches an apex whenever an initiative is involved (most often ballot titles, but also when they pass). For decades, the Oregon Supreme Court has quietly played the role of goalie for the unions whenever an initiative poses a reform threat to an allied institutional interest. There has been a lot of turnover recently, but the path to an appointment has not really changed.
DeleteOregon Supreme Court justices are elected. They almost always get re-elected. But, if they make waves and anger SEIU, AFSCME, or a large block of progressives, one or more of them might face a serious challenge.
DeleteHa. There hasn't been an open seat election on the Oregon Supreme Ct in more than a decade. Every single current justice got their seat by appointment (and no one ever challenges incumbents). All were appointed by Gov's Brown or Kotek (with the "advice" of the public employee unions).
DeleteNobody’s judged as being politicized when they agree with you.
ReplyDeleteA one party system will do that.