Sanford Removes “Stimulus” Case From SC Court
As one of the most constitutionally-limited governors in the whole country, Gov. Mark Sanford’s power over the legislative and judicial branches in South Carolina is – as Robert Downey, Jr. might say – “less than zero.”
The normal checks and balances of a representative democracy simply don’t exist in South Carolina, because there is effectively no executive branch – which frankly makes all of the mind-numbing back-and-forth between the governor and his legislative antagonists sort of pointless.
Lawmakers are in control, people, which they capably demonstrate each year by sending Sanford’s vetoes back to him faster than a Shaquille O’Neal rejection.
And since the S.C. Supreme Court is appointed by the legislature, too, the justices more often than not do as they are told.
One entity that does have sufficient power to command the respect of all concerned, however, is U.S. District Court, which (surprise, surprise) is the entity to which Sanford has appealed in an effort to have all three of the pending “stimulus” lawsuits consolidated under one jurisdiction.
A much friendlier jurisdiction, we might add, for the governor to have his presumed discretion over roughly $700 million in “stimulus” money either confirmed or denied.
And so in a letter sent to the S.C. high court today, Sanford’s attorneys informed the justices of their decision to remove the case pending before them to federal court.
“We submit that consolidating the three cases involving federal law in one forum will mean that the issues will be decided quickly in accordance with the needs of the people of South Carolina,” the letter states.
Accordingly, the S.C. court will not hold its hearing on the matter tomorrow as was previously scheduled, which is a victory for Sanford.
In dismissing a “premature” stimulus-related lawsuit back in April, the S.C. Supremes seemed to signal that they would side with lawmakers in the event the case came back to them down the road – after the disputed “stimulus” funds had been appropriated.
WEB EXTRA
Comments
By BIN News Editorial Staff on May 27th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
sic(k) willie reminds our Funding Editor of a constipated voucher scam math teacher: Always working things out with a pencil. Ouch!
But in one thing sic(k) willie is “right as rain.” There is no Executive Branch in S.C. right now – because of sanfraud’s foolishness.
If ms. palin (joke) gets the Prez nomination (yuck), markie mark might get to be her “also ran.” That’s about his best hope.
By CNSYD on May 27th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Whose money is being used to pay for this windmill tilting? If it is we taxpayers then I protest.
There obviously were fundamental reasons why the SC Constitution set up our government as it did. It has functioned that way for decades. Now this phony thinks the world must be changed to fit his desires.
By me on May 27th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
sanford ftw
By Mike on May 28th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Not so much bro- do some research and you’ll find out that the motives of the authors of SC’s Constitution were quite impure indeed.
I’m just tickled because Queen Jean won’t get to complete her little plan.
By Calhoun Fawls on May 28th, 2009 at 1:29 am
Hey, I thought liberals were the ones who used the courts to get their way when the people’s elected representatives in the legislature did not do their bidding.
What a conservative Sanford is. Yeah right. People elected the members of the legislature. Sanford is using the courts to make his own laws.
You sure Sanford is not a closet Obama fan?
By Huh? on May 28th, 2009 at 7:58 am
I will be anxious to hear the argument for jurisdiction in the federal court. IF, this is a question of separation of powers, it would have to be decided under the appropriate Constitution. Unfortunately for the Governor, that Constitution is the South Carolina Constitution, and NOT the US Constitution. I can’t wait to see what the US District Court does with this one……. The Clock ticks, and this will be bounced back and forth between courts for weeks/months to come. What a waste of our tax dollars!!!
By Liberaltarian on May 28th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Not only is it our money, Sanford hired an out of state law firm to represent him (tax dollars leaving SC) and Sanford’s lead attorney just happens to have given Sanford a $3,500 campaign contribution. Nice “pay to play.” Didn’t Blaggo get impeached for something like that? Guess the lawyer made that money back in the time it took him (and the four other out of state lawyers working on the case) to draft the removal petition.
By CL on May 28th, 2009 at 9:26 am
CNSYD,
It was a post-Reconstruction effort to preserve the status quo (think Jim Crow) and prevent a reformist governor from coming in and changing too much. See the below article. Interesting that Riley and Hodges both agree with Sanford on this point and the need to reform.
http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/news/26191-state-senator-says-s-c-constitution-lsquo-born-in-sin-rsquo
By Toyota Kawaski on May 28th, 2009 at 9:50 am
“The needs of the people of SC” did that really come from the gov office
By peyton manning sucks on May 28th, 2009 at 10:30 am
will, you still haven’t told us how much this little pissing contest is costing us, the taxpayers. couldn’t we use some of that money to pay off the state’s debt instead of using it to line the pockets of marky mark’s lawyer friends? or is some out of state pac that supports closing public schools financing this latest publicity stunt?
you’re always raising hell about how the MSM doesn’t do its job, so it’s left to folks like you (get it?) to do it for them. seems you’re asleep at the switch on this one. liberaltarian and i want to know: how much public money has governor santurd spent so far? and if it’s not public money, who’s footing the bill? surely you agree that these are legitimate questions. we’re all waiting for the answers.
By sid on May 28th, 2009 at 11:13 am
“As one of the most constitutionally-limited governors in the whole country, Gov. Mark Sanford’s power over the legislative and judicial branches in South Carolina is…’less than zero.’”
Actually, that’s how it’s supposed to be, in an effective system of checks and balances. None of the three branches should have absolute “power” over either of the others. I’m not sure how SC is different from other states in this regard.
“Lawmakers are in control, people, which they capably demonstrate each year by sending Sanford’s vetoes back to him faster than a Shaquille O’Neal rejection.”
This is more a testament, perhaps, to Sanford being out of step/disliked by the GA, rather than there being any inappropriate control issue. All governors have veto authority, and all legislatures have the ability to override. The suggestion that it happens more frequently with Sanford just indicates, to me, that he simply likes to give the impression he’s bucking the “system.” I’d wager many governors would veto more legislation they don’t like, except they make a more concerted effort to determine if the squeeze is worth the juice. If Sanford wants to waste time by vetoing stuff he knows the GA will override, then it seems he’s just looking for attention.
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with taking a political stand. That’s what politicians should do. But the fact that Sanford gets overridden so often is not an indication his office is weaker, constitutionally, than those in other states. It may be (although I haven’t seen the proof), but the overrides tell me he’s either less effective at working with his GA than most other governors, or simply more willing than other governors to use vetoes he knows won’t hold.
As for looking to the feds to settle a state dispute, that seems contrary to what a true conservative would do. Shopping for a friendly judicial venue seems more out of the liberal playbook.
By Tim on May 28th, 2009 at 11:17 am
The Ungov should be congratulated for successfully punking the court. The court allowed him to join the case on the condition that he not try to deny the court jurisdiction – which he promptly did. For a guy who argues that his case is about principle, Sanford has finally definitively proven that he has none.
As for the governor’s powers under the SC Constitution, it is what it is. A more capable governor might have successfully pushed for constitutional changes to strengthen the office. A more capable politician might have achieved something – anything – despite his constitutional weakness. Your governor has done neither.
In fact, Sanford has taken a laudable and much needed goal – restructuring state government and creating more executive authority – and set that cause back by several years. Every governor since Campbell has been able achieve at least a nominal expansion of executive power. By choosing to browbeat the legislature from the day of his inauguration and proving himself ineffectual with the power he does have, Mark Sanford has provided opponents of restructuring with an argument that will resound for years: what if we have another governor like Mark Sanford?
By fitsnews on May 28th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Sid-
How is SC different? For starters, it’s the only state with a legislatively-dominated “budget and control board,” which strips the vast majority of executive functions away from the chief executive.
We are the ONLY state in the country that has one, and you can obviously see how well that’s working out for us.
Oh and Tim, don’t be such a whiny bitch. We’re sure you Obamunnists will find some way to get every red cent of this money.
For the record, we continue to believe that the “ungov” missed a GOLDEN opportunity here to simply reject the whole pot … or in lieu of that adopt a “reform or tax cut” policy for the money.
Again … debt repayment? Yawn …
-FITS
By Tim on May 28th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Whiney? Hell, I thought those comments were less whiney than most I put out there.
By sid on May 28th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Well, according to Stateline.org, SC’s governor is slightly below average in its power ranking report from ‘07. Average, on its scale, is a score of 3.5 (with five as the highest), and SC scores 3. Nine states rank the same or below, and another nine are between 3.1 and 3.3. So, is he “one of the most constitutionally-limited governors in the whole country”? I guess, if you mean one of the 19 “most…limited.”
Now, if you want to parse out specific areas where you think Sanford is more limited than most, then you start getting into the whole perspective thing. It all depends on what you think is more important regarding limitations.
For veto authority, he has as much power as any governor, apparently, scoring a five (with only a handful scoring below). Of course, for whatever reason, he seems to be unable to sustain those vetoes very well. That’s got nothing to do with being constitutionally limited, though.
For control over the budget, he ranks at the bottom, with Texas and SD, scoring a two. But only Nebraska and NY score a four, and only Maryland and WV score a five. The rest sit at three, which really doesn’t seem to be that much better. Other areas are a mixed bag.
So, overall, Sanford is really just below average on this scale for being limited.
By BIN News Editorial Staff on May 28th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
sid, don’t confuse sic(k) willie with facts or details.
They just get in the way of his rants. He could care less.
He is just a (low) paid political pimp.
By Silence Dogood on May 29th, 2009 at 2:19 am
I usually think of the Florida Governor (who happens to live in S.C. and f-up my state at every opportuniy) doesn’t have any balls whatsoever. However, he straight up lied to the Supreme Court of this state through his counsel – AND to boot he is screaming “STATE’S RIGHTS!” all the way down to the federal court house an saying tha apparently federal intervention is the only way he can get a fair hearing on states rights…??? Presumably he now understands the importance of the federal Voting Rights Act and why, no matter how tedious or burdensome it may seem at times, there are also strong arguments for it as well.
Sandford’s straight up deception to this states highest court and backassward logic of ’state’s rights’ arguments only getting a fair hearing in federal court is awesome. Some body get that guy and “I’m a Jackass” T-shirt on the double.