The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

In a previous thread (Gay marriage discussion) I lamented that with the upholding of the US Constitution by an independent judiciary and the State Supreme Court consistently upholding the state constitution and striking down blatantly unconstitutional laws (repeatedly) - that it was anticipated that the legislature would try to gain control or at least political influence over the judiciary.  A shiny new bill seeks to accomplish this task:

HB3380 creates "The Board of Judicial Performance Evaluation"
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20INT/hB/HB3380%20INT.PDF

Not too Orwellian is it? 

It creates a new agency which will have 9 voting members, 3 appointed each by the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the Oklahoma House.  The only requirement for the members is that they cannot be lawyers or members of the judiciary (read:  no legal training).  The idea is to have these 9 people, who by law have little or no legal knowledge, evaluate the "performance" judges in the State and give an opinion as to whether they should retain office.


So basically, political appointees of the legislature will "evaluate" your rulings, presumably not on the legal merits of the ruling, and tell voters whether you are a good judge and should retain the post.  But the judiciary will remain 100% independent and in no way should they feel political pressure to base legal decision the prospect of being judged by a political committee.  Or... in the alternative, the panel represents the legislature trying to find a legal way of controlling that pesky branch of government that follows the constitution(s).

The Journal Record has a great article on the topic:
http://journalrecord.com/2014/01/27/editorial-giant-steps-backward-opinion/
or
http://journalrecord.com/2014/01/27/editorial-giant-steps-backward-opinion/#.Uue4Z6tOUlI.facebook

Wow.

So how will this be argued in court?

It will be ruled unconstitutional. :D. Not seeing the problem about having no legal training to monitor judges. After all, judges are elected in this state by a legally-uneducated lot. Seriously, what training does T have in evaluating judges? And what training does CF have in being an Oklahoman to lecture you rubes about what's good for ya for that matter? This all sounds more like ol' CF is trying to keep his plaintiff-friendly appellate bench in place.  ::)

Quick - I cannot attack the merits of the statement, I had better attack the person posting the information.

I have lived in Oklahoma 11 years.  I chose to move here. Chose to stay.  I'm not here merely by default.

But the "get on board with my view or leave" bandwagon is pathetic at the national and local levels.

If by "plaintiff friendly" you mean one that upholds the constitution, equity, and justice - then by all means.  But my view is also held by my defense attorney friends and the Oklahoma Bar Association... so it doesn't really seem to be a Plaintiff/Defendant issue.  Get a Defense contract for me, I'd be happy to split my practice.

How would it help?  How would this bill make things better?

Nope. Just calling you a carpetbagger. That's it. Coming down from the north to make a living off of us backwards buffoons in this state that voted 76% in favor of a statute (which I do not even care about) that 1 unelected guy invalidated. That's democracy for ya, which is what you are currently railing against. And keep this argument between the ditches. Judge Kern, who handed down that decision, would not even be subject to the statute that has you all wadded up. It would apply to only state court justices, making the premise of your point faulty

And I will remember how "independent" our judiciary is when a ruling you disagree with comes down.

No idea because I only have a proposed bill to look at. But the argument here is that citizen commissions are wrong, because it threatens the independence of the judicial branch. Ask yourself a question, how many times have you heard about allegations of judicial misconduct, judges making horrible rulings, etc. Except for the notorious cases, you don't. Heck, I am in this business and I don't hear anything. A little sunshine on our government cannot be that bad.

OK, based on the history of Oklahoma's legislative branch, do you think this bill will be helpful to anyone but the legislative branch and the people who paid/is paying their way?

Gee...being a lawyer, I would have thought you of all people would understand that we are not a democracy, but a republic!  Don't they mention that in law school somewhere/sometime??

Another political patronage ploy to let some "appointed" (annointed?) person choose.

A judge found unconstitutional thereby protecting minority rights from majority rule.

Chose to stay....wow!!   I mean,....wow!

Good that you did.


Used to be a bumper sticker in the 60's that said, "America, Love it or Leave it".  The counterculture version I liked was, "America, Change it or Lose it".

Now wait a second there, Mr. Illinois...

You get my point. I have tried to assimilate (I'm a Borg, take up causes unique to the religious institutions and views of this state's citizens. Am I tough on some Okies, yep. But the gist of my message is that this is a Bible belt state, and its people for better or worse are Christian people. I acknowledge that and that's why I stay.

Again, no idea. Better thought, what's the problem with a group commenting on the judiciary? This judiciary gets lauded for its "standing up" to right wing nutjobs pushing religious dogma masked as policy/law. Correct? Many in here don't like what this legislature is doing, but most in this state apparently favor issues such as tort reform, comp reform, and even opposing gay marriage. But look at what our independent judiciary is doing in large part that gets some folks all hot and bothered. Finding passed laws unconstitutional not on substance, but on the "single subject rule"/log rolling. That's right, our terrific appellate judiciary is reduced to grammar police. That's the aggrieved side's weapon to undo the will of the people in certain cases. 

I invite anyone in here to direct me to their favorite, well reasoned/written opinion issued by our state courts. I am interested in knowing what makes an impression on you.

The impression I have, as a native, is that you are wildly overestimating what "most in this state" favor. We still have a roughly 50/50 split of party registration.  Most? Most don't even go to a church or understand our governmental system. A very small amount even vote or register to vote. That leaves a huge vacuum that is being exploited by radical politicians who use what people "think" they know against their very own interests.

I challenge you to poll 1000 people in a well designed poll of Okies to see if they even understand what a tort is, why unemployment comp needs reforming and whether we want our legislators spending time and money creating paper thin unenforceable laws just to get re-elected. While you're at it ask them their opinion on medical marijuana, Sharia law and gun ownership without any licensing or regulation at all. You won't do that, so just go ride a city bus out to Oakhurst, Turley, Tulsa HIlls or Woodland and ask around. (Don't tell them you're a lawyer though  :).

Oh, yeah, don't forget to ask them if we are a Democracy or a Republic.

OK, got it.

If you move somewhere and **** and agree with the majority, that's fine.

If you move somewhere and want to improve the place - you are a foreign carpet bagger who knows nothing and needs to either agree with the majority or leave.

Yay for the Republic!  THATS why we founded this nation.  So those that have a different opinion can be bullied into leaving.

Since gay marriage will soon be the law of the land,  do you have to get on board or leave the country?

Also... you still have not addressed the actual issue.  You just called me more names.

And if they didn't, you'd call them activist judges who weren't following the plain meaning of the state constitution. If you don't like the way the courts rule on the law, change the law. If you don't like their opinions on the state constitution, change the constitution. And if the federal constitution gets in the way, change that. Don't complain about them doing their jobs by actually applying the rules fairly.

If your problem really is politically motivated decisions, I'm not sure how you think introducing more politics into the judiciary will lead to fewer politically motivated decisions.

Who told you that Oklahoma needed improving? Seriously. You come down here from Iowa, all, what, 30 years of ya? And you know what's better or best for this state? More than 76% of the population (right or wrong) that don't want gay marriage in this state. That said, I get this image of you, hitchhiking alone along winding highways, looking to do good in places that just don't know any better. Wait, you are this guy!

http://splashurl.com/n24jfyc

And as for your point of this thread. It was nonsensical (I called it dumb, but that isn't fair). You champion the independence of Oklahoma's judiciary with the premise focusing on a decision by a federal court. The "Orwellian" bill wouldn't affect the federal court. As for Oklahoma appellate court rulings, I noted in poss that many of the big rulings overturning the masses votes were on technicalities. GIVE ME A DECISION YOU THINK DEMONSTRATES THE HEART OF THE INDEPENDENT OKLAHOMA JUDICIARY. It should be freaking easy as the appellate courts are "striking down blatantly unconstitutional laws" as you posted.

Perhaps you do not spend enough time in appellate forums or better yet in federal court where one is eye deep in thoughtful, legal opinions from the courts. Do you write many appellate or federal court briefs? To be fair, I do not spend much time in court on premises liability or car accident matters. So I tend not to go off on subjects.

You are doing it AGAIN! You have no idea what you are talking about Clavin. No idea. Here is an honest suggestion. If you want to offer something constructive in a field you are not in, try not coming off so damned "know-it-all" on it.

As it stands, there are some in this state that believe their vote means something. When 76% vote a certain way, they expect a result consistent with their vote. Perhaps these people do not reach my obvious issue that the governance of marriage is a wholly state matter. Or, that expanding the number and nature of protected classes is getting a little out of hand. Maybe these 76% of the people just want the concept of marriage in this state to remain as it was since this state was founded. Maybe it's a religious issue to them. Regardless, perhaps they see their judiciary, which is a branch of THEIR government--not some amorphous/omnipotent superbeing--as wholly unresponsive to the people. 

Guido, just because 76% percent of a state’s population votes for something unconstitutional, it doesn’t make it suddenly constitutional.  The lesson here is, you can draft a “statement” piece of legislation which says: “Oklahomans believe marriage is between one man and one woman.” but you cannot restrict the civil rights of others based on that.  The whole issue stems from religious moral code, nothing more and nothing less.  There is no way to craft an argument which denies this very fact.  As I recall, the United States was founded by people looking to escape religious oppression, please correct me if I missed something here.

The law clearly discriminates against a class of people due to sexual orientation.  That’s no different than denying marriage based on race or nationality, it’s selective discrimination.  Even un-married hetero couples are eventually granted the same civil rights as those who are “legally” married based on common law marriage.

I suspect far less than 76% of Oklahomans believe this way ten years later, nationally there’s been a sizable shift in that time-period.  People are starting to realize that granting rights of insurance and tax benefits, survivorship, guardianship, and parental rights to homosexual couples in no way threatens their hetero way of life.  Further it’s not a trojan horse for people to eventually marry their favorite horse, dog, or five year old niece.

1) Oklahoma is near the bottom for teen pregnancy, overall health, education, incarceration rate, meth abuse, prescription drug abuse, and overall wages.  Our infrastructure consistently receives failing grades.  This State has lots to offer - but pretending it cannot be improved is just obtuse.

2) The vast majority of Court action is State based.  Further, Oklahoma's legislature cannot destroy the Federal judiciary.  So they are going after the state.  The ONLY reason to change to political appointees (with the appointers, by law, having no qualifications to make said choice) is to gain influence over the third branch of power.

3) The vast majority of OK CIV APP and OK decisions are sound.  Few would disagree.  Go to OSCN, type in 2013 OK XXX and see what pops up, read. 

From trial Courts to Supreme Court to the OSCN, Oklahoma Courts do a fine job.  I'm sure it is not perfect.  They can probably be improved - but this bill isn't about improvement.  It is about control.

I tell him Oklahoma needs improving.  Since you have brought up pedigree,... well, were you born here?  And have family back to the original 1889 land grab on one side?  Great great grandfather and his brother who each got 160 acres of land near downtown Stillwater....  And have the other half of the family that was brutalized a half century earlier, being taken from their homes at gun point by the lackey's of that "Great American Hero" Andrew Jackson, then force marched from GA and TN into OK, where the land was theirs "as long as the sun shines, the grass grows, and the rivers run..."  Or else, of course until the white man decides to take it from them....

Oklahoma needs a lot of improving, as has been talked about here a lot.

And one thing you said that is soooo right on, is also so tragic...."places that just don't know any better".  So many like that here.

I strongly disagree with your comparison of gay marriage to the struggle of overcoming bans of interracial marriage. Invidious, racial animus is rooted in centuries of horrific slavery, no right to vote or own property, etc. I simply cannot accept comparing sexual orientation discrimination to racial discrimination under any circumstance.

To the larger point, we restrict the civil rights of people all the time. If you are under 18, you can't vote. If you are a certain race, there may be quotas available to you to give you an edge in contracts. If you are a convicted felon, you cannot vote and lose many other rights as well. If you break the law, we'll throw you in prison. If you are male, we'll draft you. These are but a few samples of facts of discriminatory practices, and it has nothing to do with depriving civil liberties out of sense of unfairness. It's what we as a society have determined to be necessary. It's funny you used a "horse" example, because it takes sitting on a mighty "high one" (I said high one) to not see the reality of our society and ignore its sometimes unsavory predilections.

What you are correct about is the changing times and mores.  If this gay marriage statute were to withstand appellate scrutiny, chances are we could repeal it. But that is for our actual future to decide, not our present looking at what our future might do.

guido,
Did you mean to post something there?
H.

Yeah, I f'd up. I hope I got it straightened out. To your post, I am not from this state. My wife was living here and was in the military when I met her. We moved here in 1996, when I attended TU and later she went to med school. The most important thing I learned whenever I moved to a new state (and I have done it a few times) was to accept the fact that I chose to live in that state because of what it had to offer me--not what I could do to make it more like me. If that's the case, I would never have moved from my childhood home. 

Oklahoma has lots of faults, but the one constant I appreciate is that the hearts of the people that I know are in the right place. God-fearing, giving, welcoming, and tending to look out for one another. These people make up the 76% of the people that, for good or bad reasons, oppose gay marriage.

76% opposed it 10 years ago.  I cannot find current stats for Oklahomans, but the shift nationally over the same time period has been roughly 20%. In 2004 roughly 60% of Americans opposed gay marriage, now closer to 60% approve of it.  I suspect the balance is tipping in the opposite direction in Oklahoma as well.

I was one of those opposed to it 10 years ago.  I also misunderstood what it was all about.  I thought it was one class of people wanting an advantage over what I have or that it would marginalize hetero marriage.  Radical activists were at the forefront of pro-gay marriage message and that probably turned me off to the idea as well.  A lot of misinformation was spread by opponents to gay marriage to get the law passed.

Many people who oppose “gay marriage” are okay with “civil unions” because they believe using the word “marriage” co-opts a sacred Christian term.   What they fail to realize is marriage has been a secular civil concept before it was ever a religious one.  If anything the Christians co-opted the concept.

Other reasons I hear for opposition is the stunningly ignorant: “That leads to beastiality and grown men marrying little boys!”  Or “The government will force churches to perform gay weddings!"

People like Sally Kern mistake homosexuality with sexual deviance.  She also makes my point that you cannot craft an argument against gay marriage without resorting to moral code.  She says “It’s not a civil right, it’s a human wrong!”

I can’t think of a single homosexual couple I know that flaunts their sexuality.  They are as private about it as I am with my private life.

Question is, when the courts say a law that 76% of the people voted for is unconstitutional, is it unconstitutional or do we simply assume it’s judicial activism even though the majority of the people who voted for the law don’t have the slightest clue about constitutional matters?

This all depends on the people who turn out to vote.

76% who voted opposed. 

I'd imagine due to many people believing there's just no point in voting because they think they can't make a difference. 

Maybe now, a difference can be made.

That's one of the reasons I did not move to the Boston MA area in the early 80s, California any time...

Perhaps that is all that should be said about that vote.  As has been already pointed out there would likely be an appreciable shift in that vote today in Oklahoma.

I am reminded that one of the fatal flaws of democracy occurs when attempting to purposely put up something for majority vote without provision of adequate protection for individual or underrepresented group rights.  I'm certain that if banning women's voting rights in the 20's and maintaining racially segregated public places and accommodations in the 50's or early 60's were put to majority vote in Oklahoma the outcomes would have been similar to the 2004 vote to oppose gay marriage.  Yet those notions were no less ridiculous 50 years or more ago than they are today.  Yes we're witnessing right before our eyes the erosion of the oppression that the 2004 vote sought to galvanize.

I am still so moved by the judge's decision last month when he profoundly remarked "the amendment to the Oklahoma constitution is an arbitrary exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit.  Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed.  It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions.  Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights."

Don't forget, liberals know what is best for everyone. Arguing only proves to them that they are above you, primarily because you refuse to to accept their superiority.

You have learned well.

You are the exception to that 'moving to a state and trying to change it thing'.... there are a LOT of immigrants in this state, and so many of them go to the place that I have talked about on the smaller scale - moving from Tulsa/OKC to the nearby small towns for the "ambiance" - and then bringing with them that which they moved to 'get away from'....  Owasso, Broken Arrow, Jenks, Bixby, Sapulpa, Sand Springs, et. al.

Oklahoma has lots of faults, but the one constant I appreciate is that the hearts of the people that I know are in the right place. God-fearing, giving, welcoming, and tending to look out for one another.  (Copied verbatim, since we agree pretty much right down the line on this...)

These people make up the 76% of the people that, for good or bad reasons, oppose gay marriage - not as much anymore.  Too often, the 76% (or whichever percentage it is today) is just the result of, at BEST, the desire to stick noses into other people's business.  At worst, it is the fundamentalist extremist position of the reactionary religious extremists who embrace the Old Testament like it were actually what Jesus said.  Except for that whole missing 'red letter' thing, where not only was it NOT said, but His real intent was expressed very differently in many direct red letter accounts.  Arnold Murray would be a good example of that, even if he is in Arkansas....he wants to just kill ALL "law breakers" - the old law - since we are prohibited from 'judging', get them in front of God as quickly as possible, so He can judge them....




 

Or quite simply, those 76% in 2004 were misinformed by the campaign for such a law. Many people take what is thrown at them in the first few words of press releases and commercials as the entire story.  I’m truly amazed at how quickly attitudes about gay marriage have overwhelmingly changed in just 10 years and it's seeing more acceptance of it within the Christian community (i.e. "not my place to judge”). 

Since we keep wondering into the gay marriage debate.

How many people supported it is utterly irrelevant.  There were elections in favor of segregation in the south in which 100% of voters approved it.  Even when black people were actually allowed to vote, the Jim Crowe measures still passed with 85+% support.  So what?  We are NOT a democracy.  We are a Constitutional Republic.  The Constitution being the ultimate authority.

Second Amendment - YAY CONSTITUTION!  But when it doesn't help your argument, screw it (see, e.g., Bachmann wanting to ignore the pesky citizen by birth clause; rulings on abortion, or the present discussion).  Then it's activist judges. Unfortunately, there is a body of law on point.

Well, let's look at the law on this matter:

0. DOES A "GAY MARRIAGE BAN" TREATS DIFFERENT CLASSES OF US CITIZENS DIFFERENTLY?  (we could do an equal protection or a full faith and credit analysis also)
Yes! Therefore, it triggers a Due Process analysis.  First step, does it effect a suspect class (not under current holdings) or does it effect a fundamental right (yes)?
- Brown V. Board of Education (1954) 347 U.S. 483 


1. MARRIAGE IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
- Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
- M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
- Windsor v. the United States 570 U.S. 12 (2013), 133 S.Ct. 2675; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4935

2. THE COURTS APPLY STRICT SCRUTINY TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
U.S. v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 153 (1938).
Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, ex. rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)   [Oklahoma law requiring forced castration in certain circumstances

3. TO SURVIVE STRICT SCRUTINY YOU MUST PROVE
a) Compelling governmental interest
b) Narrowly Tailored remedy
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 11 (1967)
United States v. Virginia et al. (94-1941), 518 U.S. 515 (1996)

Realistically, the debate ends there.  Almost nothing survives strict scrutiny, but for fun...

4. GAY MARRIAGE BANS CONSISTENTLY FAIL EVEN RATIONAL BASIS TESTS  (the lowest level of test for Due Process)
To survive there has to be "some rational relationship between disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.”

- Central State University v. American Assoc. of University Professors, 526 U.S. 124, 128 (1999)
- Varnum v. Brien 763 N.W.2d 862, (Iowa 2009)
- Windsor v. the United States 570 U.S. 12 (2013),  133 S.Ct. 2675; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4935   [Striking down DOMA]
- Bishop v. Oklahoma (citation pending)   [The Oklahoma gay marriage ban]
- Sevcik v. Sandoval   2012 WL 5989662, PACER Docket 2:12-cv-00578-RCJ [Nevada ruling]
- Kitchen v. Herbert 2013 WL 6697874  [Utah]
- Bourke v. Beshear (citation pending) [Kentucky]
Coming soon... TEXAS.

There is NO rational basis for the government to ban gay people from getting married.  The argument simply loses.  Just as the segregation laws eventually came to lose under the same lens.

We get it.  You have religious objections to it.  You don't like gay people.  You think it is immoral or that gay people can't raise children or that they [insert whatever here]. 

You are free to think that.  But those are not reasons to allow the government to treat a group of people differently. 

Can we move on now?

This should get interesting. Oklahoma's independent judiciary, in this case the Supreme Court, is wading into the traditional jurisdiction of Oklahoma's Court of Criminal Appeals.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/oklahoma-supreme-court-stays-executions-of-two-inmates/article_6d2262aa-c973-11e3-b33a-0017a43b2370.html

I am trying to locate the action opinion because I am very curious.

That said, most in here know I do not support the death penalty so I am really not interested in the arguments regarding the drug cocktail. I am concerned about possible overreach by the Supreme Court. I keep thinking about ol Marian Opala saying, "not no, but Hell No" about civil courts intruding into the area of the court of criminal appeals.

Agreed Guido, very interesting case.

The short version (my understanding, subject to correction): 

2 men are sentenced to die.  At this point, no one is challenging their conviction per se, for the sake of simplicity lets pretend everyone is agreeing that they should be executed.

The State of Oklahoma passed a law that allowed the state to keep secret the exact drugs, and their sources/suppliers, that would be used in the execution.  The basic makeup of the drug would be released.  But the purpose was to make it harder for activists or foreign countries to pressure the drug maker/distributor/retailer into NOT providing drugs for executions (has consistently happened).

That law was successfully challenged.  Prisoners have a right to know how they are going to die, such that they can challenge the punishment as cruel and unusual.   The State appealed the decision to throw out the law and the prisoners in question have NOT been told additional information about the drugs.

The men are scheduled to die before a ruling on the appeal.  Thus, they are scheduled to be executed before the information would be provided for them.  Denying them their right to challenge the execution (so the previous case decided, over turning the law).

SO… the men asked the Criminal Appeals Court to stay their execution until the other legal mess is sorted out.  The Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the men do not have a pending appeal before the Court and therefore they lack jurisdiction (you are out of appeals, too bad).  So, in essence, in spite of a ruling saying you get to know what we are going to use to kill you – we can’t touch it because of jurisdictional issues.

HERE we need a tangent.  In Oklahoma, all criminal appeals go directly to the Court of Criminal Appeals and no further.  The Supreme Court of Oklahoma does not hear Criminal Cases, directly.  They can hear constitutional challenges to the law, procedural issues, and jurisdictional issues.  But they generally do not hear criminal cases and do not stay executions.

The men appealed to the Supreme Court anyway.  The Supreme Court sent it back to the Court of Criminal Appeals, who basically said “hot potato, we can’t touch it because there is no proper appeal before us!”  Back to the Supreme Court – who said “damn it! What do we do now?”

What they did was err on the side of the men convicted to die.  They stayed the execution and will sort everything else out later.  The justification was they were staying the execution because of a “jurisdictional” dispute, not a criminal appeal.

The ruling is on shaky legal ground.  But probably reaches the proper conclusion.  Stay the execution.  Sort out the mess.  Then kill them.

On a different, but related topic -

Stark Naked Power Grab:  Legislature Targets the Third Branch:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/juliedelcour/julie-delcour-stark-naked-power-grab-legislature-targets-third-branch/article_93429e33-c83f-532c-8df6-89f83c765785.html

And herein lies one of the issues I have with the death penalty in the first place: unlimited appeals and access to free legal help which costs the taxpayers more money than if these two had been put in general population with no chance for parole.  The one who raped and killed the 11 month old would have already been taking the eternal dirt nap for the last 15 years or so.

The fellow who killed the 18 year old claims he’s not afraid to die, he’s just afraid if it’s going to be painful or not.  What difference does it make?  It will all be over in a matter of minutes anyhow, assclown.

Believe me, there is much more to the Supreme Court injection of itself in that criminal case.

"Stark Naked Power Grab".  Could be the title of an article as to what the S.C. just did to the court of criminal appeals. Or, the title of an article addressing the S.C. role in undermining legislative enactments.

Are they actually elected??  I guess I thought they were appointed, then the elections asked if they should be retained...

Because that particular progressive idea made sense to people and their sense of fairness and equality.....

Fallin: Supreme Court Went Too Far

http://kwgs.com/post/fallin-supreme-court-went-too-far (http://kwgs.com/post/fallin-supreme-court-went-too-far)

Guido?

You apperently have strong feelings, but are refusing to discuss.  You need to say WHY.

I think it is apperent that even the OK Supreme Court knows they are over stepping.  BUT, there was a weird jurisdictional loop where two citizens would be executed on unconstitutional terms and could not get redress.  Was the proper course of action to execute them and then determine if the execution was illegal?  It all depends on the appeal of the secrecy law... which won't be done soon.

A stay was the only solution.   The Supreme Court did not overturn the Crim Ap court (blatantly unconstitutional), rather it ruled on a matter that it may not have jurisdiction to rule on (shaky constitutional ground).  For it to be an actual power grab, you would have to argue that this sets some precedent that the Supreme Court wields power over the Crim Ap, IMHO - this is a unique situation that led to an impossible outcome.  I do not think a challenges of a civil law will often lead to the stay of an execution.

Fallen is right to step in and declare a stay.  Had she done so earlier this would have been averted.  But I agree that there must be a stay or it would be an illegal execution (though I have a tendency to agree with Conan here, there is a well established right to die a "clean death" lest it be cruel and unusua. Along with that comes the right to challenge your method of execution.).

The only alternative for the Supreme Court would be to allow a knowingly illegal execution pending an appeal of a civil law.  Weird situation.  Solution:  allow sealed review of the execution drugs.

Also Guido,

All the legislature has to do to avoid any of the power of the Court is to pass constitutional legislation.  Start by learning the single subject rule.  POOF - problem solved.  The idiots refuse to play by the rules set forth in the Constitution.

Yet they all pretend to swear an oath to uphold it?

If there was concern about a "clean death", then a bullet to the head is a very reasonable way to do it - no cruelty at all.  Instant cessation of all brain function and life with no drawn out thoughts or consciousness.  Literally milliseconds...don't have to wait 10, 20 or 30 seconds for the drug to cause sleep, then death some minutes later.  Given the fact that occasionally anesthesia leaves people "awake" but unable to respond, how do we know the killing drugs don't leave the person alert to what is happening?

Or hang 'em with extra weight strapped to the body, so it is guaranteed to remove the head from the body....  but then the head does have the ability to respond for some period of time.

I’ve always noticed a distinct burning sensation when I’ve been put under for surgery, but I doubt I’ve remained conscious longer than 10 seconds after that hit.

Penicillin?

It happens when one runs out of Jimmy hats while on shore leave.

I do not have "strong feelings" about this CCA intrusion by the Supreme Court. I'll leave it at I am concerned about the naked power grab/over reach by the Supremes in this capital punishment issue. What I will note is that the entire premise of this thread is that the Supreme Court "got it right" with their log rolling or single subject rulings. If they got it wrong, then it is they--not the legislature--that is intruding on another's power (just like they did with the stay). Right? I simply am not convinced the Court was 100% correct. You are.


 

Here's a solution. ::)

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/some-oklahoma-supreme-court-justices-could-face-impeachment/article_8d55fb98-cb23-11e3-9250-001a4bcf6878.html

The Supremes back off.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/oklahoma-supreme-court-dissolves-execution-stay/article_342a02f6-cb48-11e3-a1ea-001a4bcf6878.html

The way i read the opinions is that the Supreme Court made a mistake, but it was not a power grab. It was in treating a declaratory judgment action brought because all other avenues had been taken and completed as a civil declaratory judgment action rather than as a collateral attack on the judgment and sentence in the criminal case. They apparently recognized that the stay request was essentially criminal in nature and tried twice to punt that issue over to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The CCA refused to rule either time on the merits of the stay. The first time, the CCA correctly ruled it lacked subject matter jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action. That might have given the Supreme Court a clue about the true nature of the case before it, but they continued to treat it as some sort of hybrid civil case with a criminal case aspect that could be taken apart and dealt with piecemeal.

Meanwhile, the declaratory judgment action, stripped of the stay issue, was remanded to the trial court which ruled that the statute was unconstitutional because it deprived the petitioners of their right to access the courts. After the trial court ruled, that part of the case was sent back to the Supreme Court, which a second time sent the request for a stay pending appeal of the trial court's ruling to the CCA, this time with a formal determination by the Supreme Court pursuant to Art. 7  Sec. 4 of the Oklahoma Constitution that the CCA had jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the stay request. Lost in all of the argument is the fact that the constitutional provision cited was designed to head off these kinds of jurisdictional ping pong matches by giving the Supreme Court the final say on which court has jurisdiction. Even when the SC had ruled that the CCA had jurisdiction, the CCA refused to rule on the merits. The Supreme Court had an issue before it that it did not want to decide, but which the court that had jurisdiction was refusing to decide. The SC relied on a common-law "rule of necessity" and granted the stay.

The issue could have and should have been headed off in one of two ways. If the CCA had accepted jurisdiction over the stay request and ruled either way on the merits, the "constitutional crisis" could have been avoided. If on the other hand the Supreme Court had treated the declaratory judgment action as an impermissible collateral attack on the sentence, the "constitutional crisis" could have been avoided. Instead, the Supreme Court has now ruled that the statute was constitutional and has dissolved the stay. The political environment surrounding tonight's ruling, with the Governor's bellicose posturing and the threatened impeachment of the majority justices is troubling and was unnecessary, but that's Oklahoma politics. A lynch mob doesn't mix well with due process.

^^^^Good take.

100% agree.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YRHDomoLb-A/TPLzLzhv8EI/AAAAAAAAArk/9GnXW-v2olY/s1600/pigs.jpg.gif)

Wow! Jumping pigs.

National blogs picking up on the possible impeachment story...

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/26/oklahoma-house-seeks-to-impeach-half-of-the-state-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comments

I'll refrain from making fun of the site...but there are things of which to be made fun.

Are you not feeling well?

Here's another blog, just so T won't feel empty for not blessing us with his criticism of a right leaning blog.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/24/3430465/oklahoma-legislators-want-to-impeach-justices-who-suspended-death-sentences/

Oklahoma Chief Justice Warns Judges of Bills' Impact

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahoma-chief-justice-warns-judges-bills-impact (http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/oklahoma-chief-justice-warns-judges-bills-impact)

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/card_280/public/201407/Tom_Colbert.jpg)