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.