Folks on Twitter and elsewhere are going on about various filings in the stimulus lawsuits, and posting serious info, such as this on Facebook from Jim Rex:
Rex agrees that governor should adhere to state budget that employs federal funds
Today at 2:12pmFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, May 26, 2009COLUMBIA – State Superintendent of Education Jim Rex today agreed with the key points in a lawsuit that seeks to compel Governor Mark Sanford to accept federal stimulus funds aimed at helping schools and law enforcement agencies hit with massive budget cuts.
The South Carolina Association of School Administrators filed the suit Friday after Sanford said he would refuse to obey the General Assembly’s state budget, which requires him to accept $350 million in federal stabilization funds. Although SCASA listed both Sanford and Rex as defendants, the association said Rex’s inclusion was a legal technicality because the state budget’s language tells him to work with the governor in applying for the federal funds.
In his response filed today, Rex agreed with SCASA that the General Assembly’s budget for next year is a valid law that the governor is required to follow. Rex also said that his agency had completed the official application for the federal funds and that he had signed and delivered it to the governor for his signature.
In an optional filing, Rex also petitioned the South Carolina Supreme Court to accept the SCASA lawsuit under its “original jurisdiction,”
meaning that it should bypass lower courts and go directly to the state’s highest court for a decision.“It’s important that we have a quick ruling because July 1 is the deadline for South Carolina to apply for the stabilization dollars,” Rex said. “South Carolina taxpayers are going to have to pay back this $350 million regardless, so it should be spent here in South Carolina.”
Two additional lawsuits were filed late last week over the federal stabilization dollars. In the first, filed last Wednesday, Sanford asked a federal court to invalidate the General Assembly’s budget because, in requiring that he accept the funds, legislators had usurped his authority. A second lawsuit, filed in state court Friday by a Chapin High School senior and a University of South Carolina law student, seeks to require Sanford to accept the funds. Rex was not listed as a defendant in either of those actions.
Today is the deadline set by the General Assembly for Sanford to apply for the federal stabilization funds, but the governor has indicated that he will refuse because he believes the budget law is unconstitutional.
That release is probably courtesy of my friend Jim Foster, last heard saying “Woo-hoo” in response to the stimulus veto override. (That was it, just “Woo-hoo,” unless the paper got it wrong. Interestingly, the link to that quote no longer exists.)
But I just don’t have anything to say about all the legal back-and-forth. I’ve said so much about the whole stimulus issue, that there’s nothing new to say. Good thing I’m not a lawyer being paid to file briefs in the case, because I’d just say, “The governor has no clothes,” and there go my billable hours.
So while everyone else is eagerly perusing the legal documents, I’m like…
A Mrs. Sotomayor was my teacher in the 5th grade in Ecuador. I had a crush on her. Probably not the same one.
… over on Twitter. Perhaps I lack seriousness. But really, I’ve just reached my saturation point on all these ridiculous gyrations our governor is forcing us all to go through. I’ve got nothing to say, but it’s OK. Tweet me when it’s over.
Related Posts
I just saw a picture. Definitely not MY Mrs. Sotomayor…
Maybe someone can file a lawsuit on behalf of South Carolina students who will be impacted by the Legislature spending tax dollars on golf courses and private security teams and Confederate junk.
Do all those who subscribe to the “we’re going to be paying for it anyway, so just take the money and spend it one whatever the legislature wants” also believe that states that are paying more into the federal tax system than they receive in benefits should stop paying for South Carolina’s welfare? It’s okay in that case for other states to pay for our poor economic model and education system, but when the shoe is on the other foot we better get every phony dollar the Treasury system can print for us?
In 2004, South Carolina received 1.38 for every dollar of tax revenue contributed. That grew each year since 2000 when it was 1.27. So we’re growing more and more dependent on government tax dollars and returning less and less in revenue. What a surprise!
So why don’t we do the right thing and give back to all those other states that have been helping us out for such a long time?
Hypocrisy or greed? You decide.
Data here:
http://www.2facts.com/WA/Search/wtax40050150.asp?DBType=
There is this to say: one can point out more rank hypocrisy from our so-called governor. In his own juvenile-themed press release, the Ungov says:
“Our suit is fundamentally about the balance of power and separation of powers in our state, and whether or not the legislature is going to be allowed to erode the Executive Branch even further in South Carolina.”
And who does this teabagger decrying the encroachment of the federal government on individual and states rights ask to decide this issue? The SC Supreme Court?
Uh, no – he’s filed suit in federal court and asked that another suit be transferred to federal court.
Lovely intellect on he and that fellow Sawyer.
The SC Supreme Court is merely an adjunct committee of the legislature.
It is composed entirely of legislators or the children of legislators, and is a rubber stamp for them.
This suit is about whether the federal government can dictate to state legislatures and state governors what laws they must pass and sign. It is about the federal Congress operating outside its authority, so the suit belongs in the federal courts.
I’m hearing some people saying that Judge Sotomeyer would do well as a judge. Others say that she’ll interpret the law, rather than follow it. Has anyone got specific examples of Judge Sotomeyer’s rulings?
Karen, there is one example I know of and it involves a suit by firefighters over discrimination in hiring practices. Instead of going by the law, she “interpreted” the law and was reprimaned by another Clinton judge for her behavior. Ironically, the case is scheduled to come before the SCOTUS and she may have to recuse herself.
Naturally there are other instances where her qualifications and personal views will be questioned as they should be. At a symposium at Duke in 2006, she made the comment that “the Court of Appeals is where policy is made.” but did try to correct her comment immediately afterwards.
According to some lawyers who have faced her, she can be a little overbearing and use scathing comments when displeased. Others have an opposing point of view.
There is already a lot of information out about her and I suspect the airwaves will be filled ad nauseum over the next few weeks.
I seriously doubt Republicans will put up much of a fight unless something so totally outrageous is exposed to prevent her confirmation.
Sorry, my spelling today is terrible. It should have been “reprimanded”.
Thanks, Bart. I’ll check that Firefighters case out. And you’re right, I’m sure we’re going to hear more about her than we probably want to know over the next few weeks. I understand that she doesn’t have many (if any) decisions involving abortion or gay rights. This may be all for the good.
A link to the AG’s return was posted on The State. I read it quickly, and the law it cites seems to support the governor more than the legislature. The lawyers who I know in the AG’s office are quite good, so I’m inclined to respect their research–although I have often found fault with AG opinions in the past based on my own research and the research of others at a prominent firm. I haven’t done the research or even read their cited cases, but the feds are more likely to follow precedent than our results-oriented state court. There does seem to be a strong argument for pre-emption by the federal law, but I don’t believe that precludes litigation in state court. State courts can interpret federal law.
Where are the law professors when we need them?
For those interested, the next few weeks will probably determine the immediate future for the Republican party. Sotomayor will be a lightining rod and a central figure in a fight to win the Hispanic voters for the immediate and long term future as a voter bloc.
They will be caught in a Catch 22 if not careful. Hispanics voted approximately 71% Democrat in ’08 mainly because of the illegal immigration issue. There is no logic that can be applied here and it is in the end, an emotional issue when it comes to targeting a specific ethnic group by a political party. The talking heads used the issue as a lead almost every day and some of our politicians did the same.
I am not in favor of allowing illegals to come in and stay, use our welfare system that is already stressed to the max, enjoy the same benefits as our natural citizens, and so on and so on. After all, being here illegally is against the law and if apprehended, deportation should be the expected consequence. However, those that have been here a long time have put down roots, have children born here, are for the most part, gainfully employed, and contribute to the community.
It is a double edged sword and if not careful, some high profile Republicans will fall on it willingly. Then we must ask ourselves what price do we place of getting a vote for our respective parties. I am sure there are a lot more issues and questions other than this short list but I believe the Sotomayor nomination will be a major issue and polarizing one for the 2010 elections.
If DeMint and some others have any common sense, they will tread very carefully and consider their words and press releases. This issue belongs to Democrats and is being orchestrated masterfully. No one will remember that Alberto Gonzalez was the first Hispanic Attorney General, they will only identify him with Bush and questionable decisions.
After reading more about Sotomayor, she may be a surprise Supreme Court justice for a lot of people. It is one thing to be an activist at the appeals level but another one at the highest level. We can only hope she does follow the Constitution and not consider it as imperfect as Obama has clearly stated he believes it to be.
Something to think about anyway. Have a good day.
Bart,
I’d rather have a small tent of people with principles than a large tent of people who compromise their beliefs just to win political seats. If the Republican Party is afraid to address the issue of illegal immigrants as a basic “rule of law” issue, then it will lose as many people as it gains.
We only need to look at the example of California to see what impact unchecked illegal immigration can have on a state.
A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should not be treated as a “opportunity” to tread lightly for political reasons. Ms. Sotomayer should get the same vetting that every other nominee has received.
I did find it interesting that President Obama played up Ms. Sotomayer’s Catholic school education as part of her background saying it showed the power of education in the rise from poverty. Yes, private schools do offer a better shot, don’t they Mr. President.
The question that she will dance around in the confirmation hearings will be about Roe V. Wade. She has already said that her gender and heritage influence her decisions on the bench. Will her religion also do the same?
Obama said during the campaign that his top criteria for judicial appointments was “empathy” for the minority point of view. He said he did “not want judges who feel constrained by the Constitution”.
Obama certainly doesn’t feel constrained by the Constitution.
Just watch is socialist regime attempting to nationalize banks, investment firms, and automobile manufacturers.
Next on his agenda are nationalizing the medical industry, wage and price controls for more and more people, censorship, and disarming honest people. He will need a lot more corrupt judges to move that along. There are plenty of such quack judges available on the socialist side of the Democratic Party.
My comments were based strictly on a political scenario not ideology or rule of law. Unfortunately, today that seems to be the only acceptable criteria for making a decision and those who follow the seldom walked path pay a price.
I only stated the obvious and the final decision is up to each individual representative or senator. I do not advocate giving Sotomayor a free pass, but do recognize the hazards of being too zealous.
I would like to see some intelligence and to use an old word, “smarts” when she is being questioned, not grandstanding and political opportunism. There is nothing wrong with being principled and pragmatic at the same time. Who knows, it just might work.
I don’t want any judge who “interprets” the Constitution to expand government, create new wealth transfer programs, and suppress the ability to challenge political ideas in the media, or to disarm the people so they do not have the last resort of self defense against tyranny.
Bart, you are a refreshing figure on this blog, even if we don’t necessarily agree all the time. You obviously think about your positions, are usually fair when evaluating those with whom you diagree, and usually carefully consider sources.
You are not like some other people who really could really easily set up a computer program to respond to any question; all they need is a key word search of Brad’s post or someone’s comment and PRESTO!, they have the response with one click! But it would probably be a silly use of a computer program, since most uf us already know what the response is going to be.
Anyway, thanks so much for your responses and thoughts. I always read them. I will admit that I was a bit puzzled with your response on Deuteronomy 15:4. I’m not sure what you’re driving at, but that’s for another time, probably. (I’m on a change of medication that makes it hard for me to analyze written material right now, anyway.)
I’m glad Sotomeyer is not on record (as far as I know or have heard) regarding abortion, death penalty, gay rights, or stem cell research. Maybe we can get a chance to hear what she thinks and how she rules without all and sundry lining up automatically on one side or the other. She has been a judge for some time, so it’s likely that her history will reveal whether or not she has any consistently applied political bent. It should also tell us whether her decisions are predominantly based in and on law, or if she tends to develop law rather than rule on it.
Herb, Deuteronomy 15:4. My response took into account that the land God promised the Israelites was one flowing with milk and honey. When the spies went in and come back with their report, they described grape vines that were heavy with fruit and other wonders of plenty. As the verse goes, “(4)However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, (5) if only you fully obey the Lord your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today.”
I took this to mean or imply that God gave the Promised Land to His people and it was a prosperous land already. God also expects us to earn what we receive and to be generous and share with the less fortunate. As He said, the poor will always be with us. Unless an Israelite was not able to work, widowed, orphaned, or poor for legitimate reasons, to me God was telling His people there would be no reason to be poor if you work the land and follow His commands. In fact, I think God made it pretty easy for His people but He made a promise and kept it. As you indicated, it was the Israelites who didn’t keep theirs.
To me, this is where interpretation is important and we should be careful to avoid taking one or two verses and using them on a stand alone basis. I have heard too many fire and brimstone preachers latch onto one or two verses and beat the congregation to submission with them but if the preacher had actually studied the Bible as intended, he would have understood that the verses were and are part of the entire message from God. Although we do need to use individual verses at times for inspiration but I think you understand the point I was trying to make. We all have the opportunity, not a guarantee to be richly blessed if we follow God’s commands and unfortunately, when we describe someone as poor today, it is strictly in financial terms. Some of the richest people I know have little or nothing but their spirit and devotion to God makes up for their lack of earthy goods and possessions.
Much was made about the percentage of income given by different socio-economic groups of people. While it is true conservatives tend to be more generous than liberals, when you look at those who give 5% of $10,000 vs 3.5% of $50,000, can we discern whose heart is bigger and who is living according to God’s will? Maybe the 3.5% comes out of a family income that supports 6 or 7 people. Maybe keeping statistics is important but sometimes I wonder.
Have a good day and hope you get your change in meds straightened out soon.
Lee, historically your statement about the S.C. Supreme Court being the third and most powerful house of the General Assembly is true. Currently only two of the five have legislative experience and that number is about to drop to one. Of course that one is Jean Toal who seems to have more influence than a first among equals.
Kathryn, I agree with you that the state Supremes has been result oriented (the opinion validating the Budget and Control Board is a personal favorite for placing politics over law). I read the order dismissing the first student suit as strongly inferring that when the time was right the Court was disposed to find in the Plaintiff’s favor.
The Federal Courts do a better job of following the law. Does anyone know who the judge is? Joe Anderson would give a careful and unbiased hearing (the others would too, Anderson is just really first rate).
The idea that the Stimulus statute does not give decision making power to the Governor seems to be of fairly recent vintage but I assume the Court will have to decide the meaning of the statute in that regard. If it is found that the decision making power was vested by Congress in the Governors of each state then I do not see it as being a long step at all to find a state statute attempting to deprive a governor of that Congressionally granted power as being violative of the Supremacy Clause.
The serious question which the Supremes need to confront but will probably fudge is whether the power to appropriate includes monies which the state does not currently control. They may do this by means of a creative interpretation of the Stimulus statutes decision making language.
What happens if the Supremes find that the Governor has to apply for the monies while the federal case is still under consideration? Would the feds have to issue a TRO?
I think the primary reason Sanford took the federal route is that he was confident that, before the State Supreme Court, the matter would be decided based upon politics rather than law.
Joe Anderson is the judge and will be hearing arguments on Monday as to whether all three cases should be consolidated in Federal Court. that is the best possible news.
Bart, the point was that Deut. 15:4 is in the middle of the laws about the year of Jubilee, which returned property to its original owner. That is why there would be no poo among them; laws in ancient Israel basically encouraged hard work, but they also discouraged massing up wealth. There are both socialistic and capialistic aspects to society as envisioned in the OT. That is not to say that it must be slavishly copied, but we always need to think about how it should affect current practices. There are aspects of Scripture that always cramp our style and question our practices, and that is, I think, as it should be.
Herb, thanks for the reply. I guess this is the reason for differences of opinion. My interpretation is not based on where it is located in Deut. but the wording of 15:4. The use of the word “However” to me under the circumstances of the riches and prosperity in the Promised Land, is clear that there should be no poor among you but if there are and if they are in debt to you, you must cancel any debt your brother owes you.
Now, given the fact that I am not versed in and have not read the OT in the original Hebrew or Greek, the use of the word “However” in an NIV bible may not be the correct interpretation. The KJ bible uses the word “Save” at the beginning of the verse. Based on my exposure to the English language and listening to some practitioners of old English, the word save can also mean however or except. My parents used the word “save” in this same context to mean however or except. “Save the fact that we were not home, we could have been in the house when the tornado hit.”
I am sure some readers may find this boring and if they do, I apologize. However, I find it educational and informative to discuss and learn from the perspective of others.
I would appreciate an answer or response on this Herb, if you have time.
Herb, sorry, I didn’t finish my response in the opening paragraph. I took the verse to mean there should be no poor because of the riches of the Promised Land and even during the celebration of Jubilee, cancelling the debt of a brother would not necessarily mean he was still not poor, just out of debt to his brother.
Cancelling the personal debts to another person is a personal matter, to be decided by the person who is owed the debt.
It is outside the authority of any third persons, at any level of government in America., to nullify debts, or create new ones out of thin air – but that is the sort of illegal government of men we have today.
Well, we know what Lee thinks of biblical law, anyway.
Bart, the Hebrew is pretty plain in this case. A lot of times it isn’t, because there is generally one conjunction (the waw-conjunction) that can serve the purpose of expressing “and,” “but,” “now” etc. But the expression here expresses, to put it in the words of the Princeton Abridged BDB (Brown-Driver-Briggs is the old standard Hebrew dictionary, Princeton U. came out with a new abridged and revised edition of the same) “non-existence.” In other words, “however–this condition will not be the case among you if you follow my laws.” But since Deuteronomy always assumes that they will not follow God’s laws (as indeed they did not–I have not really asked an orthodox Jew what they think but Deuteronomy can not be an overly popular book among them), it expresses what they are to do with regard to canceling debts.
We cannot, of course, slavishly follow biblical law in modern society. Nor can we legislate righteousness to a great degree, though we always do so to some degree (I’m not allowed to murder anybody). And yet Christians can know from Scripture what God ideally wants, and what God ideally wants is that a) no one freeloads off of other people by refusing to work when they can, and b) we are obligated to bear one another’s debts, because that is exactly what Christ did for us. So Lee’s statement above is absolutely ridiculous from a Christian standpoint, for since God has done exactly that (cancelled personal debts of others), we should practice the same, to the extent that we can in terms of balance with other biblical principles (such as each person bearing her/his own load–see Galatians 6:1).
In general, I think that Luther had the right idea by separating church and state from each other, but as John Stott says in his commentary on Matthew, Luther goes too far. The Reformed teachers were not quite so neat in their separation, nor can we be in practice. In other words, while we cannot require or expect of non-believers and the world in general what we expect of people in the church or who are attached to the church in some way, we still work to see that biblical principles be implemented to some degree in society. The Ten Commandments come to mind, or at least six or seven of them (the first three are hard for non-believers to relate to). In general, the Bible pushes us towards unselfish behavior, and at some point, that means some degree of re-distribution of income, because a) stuff happens in life, and people become poor through no fault of their own; b) sometimes it is their own fault, but we need to have some degree of compassion, knowing that we are not perfect; 3) sometimes we are led to choose to suffer and take risk for those who have gotten themselves into a mess, and need help.
Does the government have no role in that? Lee, I’m sure, would argue that way, but that is too neatly decided I think. It would seem from Romans 13 that government has a role of forcing us to go the extra mile (see Jesus’ statement about the hated Roman garrison’s behavior) and otherwise force us to look beyond ourselves, even when it’s demands may seem to be, or even be very (as in the case of Nero, the authority at the time of writing) unjust: “fear God, honor the authorities, pay your taxes.” Period.
Hey Bart, there is an excellent message by Tim Keller on 1 Cor. 13 entitled Love and the Practical Graces. It is captivating. Knocking down the ridiculous idea that 1 Cor. 13 is some kind of nice text to read at weddings, it shows how 1) giftedness is, in itself, nothing, 2) being good gains nothing (because “being good” is usually always about me and making me look good and feel good about being good, and 3) grace is everything. 1 Cor 13 is, I think, the exact opposite to most all human virtues and behavior, since it describes what Christ is like.
That may seem far-fetched from the point at hand, but I don’t think it is. The essence of OT law is to define in practical terms what it means to “love my neighbor.” Practically that means to “grace” my neighbor, forgiving debts, willingly distribute some of my own hard-earned wealth, etc. Since we generally need a prod to practice some unselfishness, it is not wrong for government to make some of those requirements on me, and for me to cheerfully obey them. Its the only way that universal health care will, work, for example. People would rather spend money on a new car than on health insurance, so they don’t want health insurance until they get sick–selfishness. Insurance companies don’t want to pay for pre-existing conditions, in fact, they don’t want to insure anybody unless they can make good money off of them (selfishness). So it takes government to force both sides to cooperate. It works fairly well in Germany; if I could, I would go back there in an instant. I did not have a single room when I was in the hospital, but care was very adequate. Here we have so many hospital bills, just from one visit, that one cannot keep up with them all, and we usually end up over-looking at least one of them and eventually getting nasty collection letters as a result.
Hope you understand my ramblings above. Government and taxes are not all bad. Besides, even if they are or become bad, they are a lot like that boss you said was so harsh, and yet you learned from him; our response to Caesar’s demands should be to willingly submit to Caesar’s demands. That does not leave much room for tossing tea into Boston harbor, I conclude.
Herb, thanks for your comments. I will read and digest them before responding. You and I have a lot of similar thoughts on government and taxes but different if that makes sense.
Anyway, have a great weekend.
(I liked the tea bag rallies. They were a representation of those who normally do not go to rallies, join protest parades, or other public displays of dissatisfaction. I find it very disquieting and a harsh reflection on those who make light of what these average, everyday citizens did and the fact that they took time from their schedules to attend the rallies. When the silent ones take time to make their voices heard in public, we should pay close attention, not ridicule or make light of it. My wife is probably one of most private people I have ever met yet she attended a rally and still has a tea bag hanging from the car interior and she is about as centered a person I know.)
Thanks, Bart. Have a great weekend, too.
Just to sum up:
God commands us to share with those in need.
God also instituted government (Genesis 9 seems to be the first passage in that direction) to : 1) prohibit the worst in human behavior–in other words, what we should not do, and to 2) ensure that at least some of His desire for us–in other words, basic commands of what we should do– would be implemented.
Therefore: there will be roles for government to play in many areas of human behavior. (The alternatives are, it would seem: 1) either totalitarianism, or 2) an elusive utilitarian utopia that Rich has written about, but has no grounding in reality (atheists historically provide a notoriously bad basis for moral behavior–particularly because man is a spiritual being–that is our nature–to ignore that is perilous and ultimately leads to nihilism), or 3) total chaos.
What we need is some real significant thought on what and how far that should be. Obviously Calvin’s Geneva is way too far. Sharia law is also totally undesirable. But so is Lee’s position, which seems to me to presume that Americans are all glorious, messianic people who need no government (and all non-Western, non European people are the origin of all that is bad among us–a caricature, I realize, but he has often come close to writing that)–just get government off their backs, and they will all behave like angels. This position is also untenable. Lee negates the biblical position of human depravity (using the word in its proper, theological sense), and presumes that Americans are basically good, and will always choose the good.
But then where do we, as evangelical Christians, place the goals towards which we want to work? Where are the proper boundaries for government (which is obviously also subject to human depravity) to force us to behave in a way that prevents the worst, and at least protects the very vulnerable? What can we advocate in the way of righteousness that should be implemented by government, and what not?
Obviously we will disagree to some extent on where those boundaries are, but we need to do some serious thinking about them, and I think evangelicals could come to a sensible consensus if we would only do some thinking, rather than knee-jerk reactions.
Hard work, but that is what we must do. And we have to do it, and still make clear that it is clearly not the Gospel of Christ, but it is a legitimate corollary of the Gospel that we work toward it.
Oh, Bart, I think you misunderstood my reference to the tea-bags. By all means Christians should be involved in showing their convictions.
I was referring to the Boston tea party, and the fact that the Revolution really had little grounding in Biblical thought. I guess I would have been a loyalist, had I lived at the time, and hopefully would have stood for my convictions to the death. John Wesley chose the easier way out–he returned to Great Britain, but then God obviously had a lot of work yet for him to do there.
That is not to negate the Christian convictions of those who served, any more than I would negate the Christian conscience of Robert E. Lee, or Stonewall Jackson. But Lee, Jackson, and Washington were all mistaken, though sincere, in my estimation. I would have to agree with a British friend that the American Revolution was primarily promoted and fomented by Benjamin Franklin as a personal vendetta for having been slighted while he was in Britain. It should never have happened.
And to think, we would have had a decent national health system now, had we maintained our senses. And some decent tea (PG Tips or Brooke Bond) in our stores. And the BBC would be our main source of news. No Fox News. Now that would have been good news indeed.