I am Tom Freeland, a lawyer in Oxford, Mississippi. The picture in the header is my law office. I'm on Twitter as NMissC

Missing Posts: If you have a link to a post that's not here or are looking for posts from Summer of 2010, check this page.


Atty General Hood has asked for a rehearing on the pardons decision

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 the majority opinion announces a “new rule… that a constitutional violation by a governor is not reviewable unless ‘personal or private rights are interfered with'” and that this rule “is troubling.”

But there is no case or controversy for a court to hear unless “personal or private rights are interfered with,” is there?  Am I missing something here?

The rehearing petition quickly rights itself and makes a new argument that, as I noted, is the best yet:  That the constitutional provision involving victims rights enabled legislation under which victims were given a right to have reasonable notice relating to pardon or parole consideration.  This is not some vague natural “right of the people” (such as was mooted about in the dissents) but a specific and concrete right belonging to victims to have notice of some sort.

The rest of the brief is not as good and is essentially a rehash of prior arguments.  Will it work– that is, will it pull of the votes needed?  I doubt it.  I will be interested in seeing the response from the beneficiaries of the pardons and from the governor.

Comments are closed.