Court rules Gov. Brewer acted illegally in firing redistricting chair

11 comments:

• Rational Human posted at 6:41 am on Wed, Nov 23, 2011.

  Posts: 613

  The ignorance of the above posters is primarily due to the fact that they get their info directly from newspapers who have little to gain but printing the actual truth. The Court has ruled that Governor Brewer did not exceed her authority. They have deferred to her and to the Senators to determine what constitutes substantial neglect of duty or gross misconduct. However, they do not believe that Ms. Mathis received adequate notice on the specific violations and have reinstated her subject to the Governor fixing the procedural shortfalls.

  They merely concluded that Brewer and the Senate made procedural errors that can be fixed.

  Brewer's authority has been confirmed and she simply needs to write a detailed letter to Mathis in which Brewer lays out the specifics of Mathis's violations. She needs to give Mathis an adequate time to respond and if Brewer still believes that Mathis has substantially neglected her duty, Brewer has the clear authority to once again remove her. End of story.

  • Link

   

• bblade50 posted at 8:39 pm on Mon, Nov 21, 2011.

  Posts: 26

  Talking about Chgo dirty politics, I grew up there during that time and AZ has nothing on them. She's having closed and back door meetings of her own. So where's the justice in her arguements. Kick her out of office that can get someone in there who get this state moving again.

  • Link

   

• CSalafia posted at 9:53 pm on Fri, Nov 18, 2011.

  Posts: 201

  @sndvl - Mathis was selected by a unanimous vote of the other 4 members, so your claims of her being a "democrat hack" is just utter nonsense.

  Second, although AZ Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the Governor based on bipartisan board recommendation, the do come up for retention election by the public. So, again, your claim of "unelected judges" is also nonsense.

  I agree with David that it sounds like you need a refresher in civics....actual civics...not the revisionist tea party type.

  • Link

   

• davidflucier posted at 3:19 pm on Fri, Nov 18, 2011.

  Posts: 184

  @sndvl...where in the world did you take your American Government or Civics classes? Obviously not in America...or perhaps you stayed home with the flu during each successive year when the teachers talked about the THREE branches of government being the American model for checks and balance...NOT two! Is it any wonder the State of Arizona is in the state it's in?

  • Link

   

• abimopectore posted at 9:55 am on Fri, Nov 18, 2011.

  Posts: 168

  There's is no such thing as an override of the judiciary. The balance of power hasn't been set up this way. It is only a theory that has never been implemented through any Constitutional or statutory form. Those arguing such a thing are grabbing at straws, hence the ridiculous arguments on behalf of the Governor's lawyers. This is what we get for electing intellectually handicapped leaders who don't have the ability to think through their actions before making imbecilic and costly legal maneuvers.

  • Link

   

• sndvl55 posted at 9:12 am on Fri, Nov 18, 2011.

  Posts: 13

  SICKENING POWER GRAB BY THE COURT!!

  If the elected governor and TWO-THRIDS of the elected Senate come to the same conclusion, it is not up to unelected judges to decide they don't like that conclusion and insert themselves into a process they have no constitutional basis for getting involved in. Naked abuse of power by the court!

  If TWO branches of government act and one can always override them, no matter what, we no longer have checks and balances, we no longer have equal branches of government, we have a reign of unelected judges. Sickening.

  Anyone but the most partisan of Democrats can see that Colleen Mathis is not an "independent". She is a Democrat hack. There is nothing independent about this redistricting committee. Time to repeal the law that created it. It was a bad idea in 2000 and it's a bad idea now. Never give power to UNELECTED boards. Always make sure that those in positions of power are accountable to the voters.

  • Link

   

• davidflucier posted at 5:30 am on Fri, Nov 18, 2011.

  Posts: 184

  The arguments used by the executive branch were so patently absurd they defied all legal logic and rationale. In essence, they were saying, it is what it is because I say it is...and, I have the right because I have the right.

  Is it any wonder this administration continues to rack up a string of legal losses?

  • Link

   

• soricobob posted at 4:55 am on Fri, Nov 18, 2011.

  Posts: 679

  A court with brains, how unique.

  • Link

   

• CSalafia posted at 9:28 pm on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

  Posts: 201

  The Governor doesn't get to tell the other branch of government to keep their noses out of her business, particularly the one that's supposed to judge the legality/illegality of her actions. That and the "gross negligence is whatever I say it is" are prime examples of the arrogance and the entitlement attitude of the Governor and her toadies in the Legislature.

  Big win for the people of Arizona.

  • Link

   

• qwert posted at 9:08 pm on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

  Posts: 3

  I have to agree a big win for the people of Arizona, maybe time for brewer to follow in footsteps of pierce

  • Link

   

• Cerulean posted at 6:35 pm on Thu, Nov 17, 2011.

  Posts: 1380

  I listened to the hearing, most of which centered around whether or not the Justices had legal standing to intercede. Gov. Brewer’s attorney Lisa Hauser, argued that they should not. The query then centered on a hypothetical situation where, for example, could the Governor remove a commissioner for having blond hair, or a purple dress? Brewer’s attorney argued ‘Yes, she could.’ The Justices then asked, ‘Does egregious or substantial neglect of duty have no meaning? ‘

  It appears that it does have meaning. Yeah! This is a win for the people of Arizona.
  

  • Link