Comments on: Supreme Court Tosses Budget Board Case

By: Ben Tillman

Ben Tillman — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:45:16 +0000

Observer: it’s actually quite simple. The state supreme court DID decide to hear this case — contrary to your suggestion, it granted original jurisdiction and then violated its own rule by granting a motion to dismiss without allowing the parties to address the merits. South Carolina Appellate Rule 229(c) reads: “Unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court, the petition shall be decided without oral argument. If the petition is granted, the respondent shall have 30 days to serve and file an answer to the complaint.”

Under this rule, the Supreme Court in a setting such as this one is supposed to first determine whether it will accept original jurisdiction and if so, over what parts of the case. Next, the Court issues a scheduling order with respect to an Answer or other responsive pleading by the Respondents and the merits are addressed through briefing and/or argument. That procedure was not followed here.

By: The Observer

The Observer — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:30:13 +0000

bottom line is the state supremes have ruled on this issue 4 times in the last 3 decades…and they have ruled with the state. Just like the US Supreme Court, our court does not have to hear all cases that are presented, they can choose to hear them and issue an opinion or they can choose not to. It’s actually quite simple. Maybe they will issue an opinion on the Governor’s money laundering scandal….I bet then, someone will hope the the Supremes take a pass as well..

By: sc atty

sc atty — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:31:16 +0000

. . . or we should change our name from South Carolina to West Pakistan

By: Ben Tillman

Ben Tillman — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:11:26 +0000

Dear Hmmm: the constitution does not provide for the legislature to elect the treasurer. The legislature gave itself that power by statute. But don’t feel bad: Sen. McConnell, chairman of Senate Judiciary, made the same mistake. All of which begs this question, however: does anyone bother to read that f-ed up 1895 blueprint passed by the fathers of Jim Crowe?

By: sc atty

sc atty — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:50:08 +0000

Still doesn’t explain Catherine Harrison’s Facebook comments and Kendall Burch’s “judicial” email. And the State is reporting that the Court has rejected a FOIA request.

Impeach them all.

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 02:50:27 +0000

Latest from the Supremes on the bar exam controversy.

http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/whatsnew/displayWhatsNew.cfm?indexId=421

By: Hmmmm...

Hmmmm... — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 02:07:43 +0000

1. Legality of the legislative appointment: Called for by the constitution.

2. Legality of the legislative appointment being a legislator: A. There would seem to be no constitutional prohibition. B. He’s no longer a legislator.

3. Legality of the board as an entity in and unto itself: Already been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

Bottom line is I agree with you. The legislative body now has control of the BCB. It doesn’t look good, it doesn’t smell good. But this is a lawsuit that goes nowhere for a couple of reasons.

First, the Supremes have to uphold the constitution. And the constitution, for whatever reason, says the legislature picks the treasurer. Game over.

And second, who is it that gives the Supremes their jobs?

By: King Richard

King Richard — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:59:25 +0000

Pick a legislator or pick a large pocket of money. good pick in Converse.

By: Syd

Syd — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:47:18 +0000

Ah, must be those famed activist judges we keep hearing so much about…when it suits your purpose.

By: i'll take this

i'll take this — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:36:18 +0000

The legality of legislative appointment, the legality of the legislative appointment being a legislator, the legality of the board as an entity in and unto itself, the legality of the whole damn corrupt house of cards!!!!

Fitsey you are onto sometihng here!!! Dont let the bastards grind you down!!!!!