You may recall that Cindi Scoppe worried earlier that maybe Judge Manning himself came up with the outrageous idea that maybe there was some doubt about whether the attorney general had the authority to investigate crimes allegedly committed by legislators, without special permission.
She writes today that her fears were realized:
I respect the idea enunciated Friday by Circuit Judge Casey Manning that, before this case proceeds any further, he wants a thorough examination of subject-matter jurisdiction. That is, he wants to make sure that the State Grand Jury and Attorney General Alan Wilson actually have jurisdiction to investigate this case without the House Ethics Committee asking them to.
But honestly, the idea that they don’t … . Well, it remains too bizarre to even comprehend….
You want to know how out-there an idea it is that the state constitution prohibits the attorney general from investigating legislators without other legislators’ blessing? It’s so out there that even Mr. Harrell’s attorneys didn’t think of raising it.
That’s right. Mr. Harrell has some awfully audacious attorneys… But even they didn’t dream up this crazy theory. They quickly embraced it, of course; they’d be crazy not to. But the idea was not, as so many people had assumed, the brainchild of Bart Daniel and Gedney Howe.
It was, as Judge Manning acknowledged in court on Friday, Judge Manning’s idea.
How preposterous is the idea? Listen to former Attorneys General Henry McMaster, Charlie Condon and Travis Medlock, who served as South Carolina’s chief prosecutors for the past 30 years, showed up in the courtroom to make a point and issued this statement:
“Over the past thirty years, not one of us ever imagined the Attorney General needed authorization from a legislative committee or political body in order to investigate or prosecute alleged criminal behavior by an elected official. Such a restriction would undercut the core Constitutional authority of the Attorney General. And even more importantly, it would violate the fundamental basis of our system of government that all people should be treated equally under the law.”
Not one of us ever imagined such a thing.
This is not a close call….
So we all wait with bated breath, while the judge considers something that, given the law, should be beyond consideration. Or at least, it appears so to this layman.
Here’s hoping he reaches that same conclusion.
Related Posts
I really don’t understand why Manning decided to raise the jurisdictional issue sua sponte. It sure smacks of something else going on.
I was talking to another lawyer around town about this case. He has an interesting theory, which I am not endorsing, but just tossing out for debate.
He thinks that Manning knows that he should rule against Harrell, but he’s going to rule FOR Harrell, just to allow Harrell some more time (as a personal favor, or something), knowing that his decision will be reversed by either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
I find that theory to be highly unlikely, but possible in the sense that ANYTHING is possible.
Scary
Judge Manning raising the issue sua sponte is incredibly troubling.
Yeah. I would have liked it better if he had raised it asti spumante. That might have been refreshing…