|
||||
|
The Attorney General has filed a rehearing petition, and Kingfish has it at Jackson Jambalaya. It’s pretty interesting, and presents the best argument yet for the invalidity of the pardons. Here I disagree with Anderson, who doesn’t it adds much to Justice Randolph’s arguments in his dissent. It starts with an odd statement: That [...]  Hint: It’s a death penalty case on post-conviction, and the procedural rule favors the petitioner/death row inmate. Rule-making power? Did someone suggest that the Mississippi Supreme Court refuses to allow the legislature to interfere with its power to make its own rules? Justice Dickinson, in dissent, doesn’t take many words to explain why this [...] Cottonmouth has the Attorney General’s statement: We do respect the decision of the Court, but feel deeply for how it must weigh on the victims and their families. It is these victims and family members who have lost today and the criminals who have won. As Supreme Court Justice Mike Randolph wrote in his [...] The decision is 6-3, with the primary opinion by Justice Dickinson joined by Carlson, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler, and King. Carlson also wrote, joined by Dickinson, Lamar, and Chandler. Chandler wrote, joined by Carlson and Dickinson. Waller, Randolph, and Pierce each wrote in dissent, and joined each others opinions. A few key passages early on [...] The Mississippi Supreme Court this afternoon did not decide the pardons case. The rumor mill once again proves faulty. On the other hand, they did cast aside (as opposed to decide) the Lafayette County Drug Court case, holding that the case is moot. Here’s an earlier post about the case. The reason it is [...] I’ve been tied up with work, but thought this a good moment, one week on, to ask what folks will predict about the pardons decision. This is a good question to ask on a blog, because I don’t see how anyone outside the court could have a clue. Past experience just isn’t a guide [...] Here’s Campbell Robertson’s take. During the argument yesterday in the pardons case, one of the justices repeatedly stated that there was a “right of the people” relating to the publication requirement. At least once, he said that the people, by adopting the constitution, reserve a right to have the publication provisions followed. Suppose that this view attains a [...] The Clarion Ledger, the Sun Herald, and the Daily Journal all have up wire stories about the Supreme Court’s en banc argument of the pardons case. Here’s the story as published by the Daily Journal. The Jackson Free Press had reporter R.L. Nave at the hearing. Here’s his report on the first two hours. [...] 9:05-9:13 I just started watching at 9:05 (had an appointment). Fortner is being seriously questioned, and doing a good job responding. Hard question: If the governor did a pardon prior to conviction, could that be raised in court? Fortner: Yes. He explains that question would come up when the improper pardon was raised as a defense to a prosecution. The court could here that, and, unlike the pardons in this case, it would not be a pardon valid on its face. He then explained how the pardons in this case all recited that there were convictions– they were valid on their face. He was then questioned about cases involving mandates to the legislature. Dickinson: Don’t you think there are circumstances that the court would go behind the legislature, talking about the Hunt case. Uses an example of the legislature passing a rule that only the male legislators could vote on a bill. Could the court hear that question. Fortner: For that kind of arguement, the court could go anywhere it needed to go. 9:14-9:25 Q: Is it your position that the governor has the right to waive the obligation of the petitioner to publish? A: The Governor is the sole judge of the propriety of the publication. Q. asked based on the dicta in Metz A. Not just Metz. Also refers to Hall (the legislature case) and a 19th C case. Later: Judicial review ends when the pardons on their face are valid. Q about pardons for treason (which require approval by the legislature) A. Consent of the senate would have to be on the face of the pardon. My note: I think Fortner has answered a couple of tough questions in ways that are problematic for him. If there must be a recital of act by the legislature on a treason pardon for it to be facially valid, shouldn’t there be a recital about publication, another requirement in the constitution? Fortner: If you are shown a pardon that doesn’t show on its face its validity. Q: cites a libel case that notes in passing the requirement of publication. The publication of a pardon application was the basis of a libel suit, and the court noted that these publications are required and therefore privilged. Continue reading Live Blogging the Barbour Pardon Supreme Court argument |
||||
|
Copyright © 2012 T. Freeland - All Rights Reserved
Technorati Profile 53 queries. 0.745 seconds. |
||||
Recent Comments