Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback Threatens to Defund Judiciary if It Rules Against Him

[Norm dePlume]

Remember when Morsi issued an order saying that Egyptian courts couldn't overrule him? It seems Brownback was taking notes.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback Threatens to Defund Judiciary if It Rules Against Him

On Thursday, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback signed a bill that threatens the entire state's judiciary with destruction if it rules against a law he favors. Brownback has spent much of his tenure attempting to curb the state supreme court and consolidate power in the executive branch. Thursday's startling maneuver suggests the deeply conservative governor has no compunction about simply obliterating separation of powers when another branch of government gets in his way.

The Kansas trouble started in 2014, when the state supreme court ruled that the disparity between school funding in rich and poor districts violated the state constitution. The justices ordered the legislature to fix the problem. Soon after, the legislature passed an administrative law that stripped the supreme court of its authority to appoint local chief judges and set district court budgets. (Instead, district court judges—who are often quite conservative—were allowed to elect their own chief judge.)

...

Now the court has an opportunity to strike down the administrative law, which probably violates the state constitution. And that's where Brownback's insane new law comes in. The law declares that if the supreme court strikes down the administrative law, the entire state judiciary will lose its funding. Brownback and the legislature are essentially bullying the judiciary: Uphold our law or cease to exist.

[phillygirl]

Soon after, the legislature passed an administrative law that stripped the supreme court of its authority to appoint local chief judges and set district court budgets. (Instead, district court judges—who are often quite conservative—were allowed to elect their own chief judge.)

I actually have no problem with the legislature's initial action. In Pennsylvania, President Judges of the counties are elected by the judges of that county, not appointed by the PA Supreme Court. Are politics involved? Absolutely. Are politics involved if the Supreme Court appoints...yep. It just depends on whose politics you want controlling...local or state. Same thing for the supreme court justices. In PA, they are subject to a retention election every 10 years, which is similar to what Kansas is attempting to do.

As for the defunding issue, basically the legislature is saying that the budget is a whole document. So if anything is deemed unconstitutional, then the whole budget relating to this must be thrown out and start from scratch. It's aggressive, to be sure. It is also very typical of the kind of fights legislators get into with the court. Pennsylvania has certainly had them.

[Billy Jingo]

Kansas seems to be the proving grounds for the destruction of the state.

Although the attempt to shift the tax burden down the economic ladder, along with some brutal cuts to public services, might indicate it more an issue of neo feudalism instead of some rich libertarian social engineering.

[Adam]

Kansas seems to be the proving grounds for the destruction of the state.

Oh fer Chrissake!

Everyone is not out to destroy any and all government. Just get the hell over it already. No one is out to create Somalia. We have one of those already, and anyone who wants that can go there on their own.

This schtick is getting really, REALLY old.

Although the attempt to shift the tax burden down the economic ladder,

And yet (successful) attempts to shift the "tax burden" (a wholly dishonest concept in and of itself: I use exactly the same amount of Navy as Bill Gates does, not one cent more or less) are championed as "progress" and "fairness"

What fucking horseshit. People, a whole lot of people, are sick and fucking tired of that bullshit argument.

along with some brutal cuts to public services,

Name one worthy person in Kansas who has had so much as one thin dime in government services cut from them any more than any other person. Actual names with credible sources, unlike, say, the thoroughly-proven lies about "Christine Dill."


I'll wait.

might indicate it more an issue of neo feudalism instead of some rich libertarian social engineering.

What it indicates is that people are sick and fucking tired of of a bunch of people claiming "downtrodden" status who do nothing to improve their own lot.

[Norm dePlume]

I actually have no problem with the legislature's initial action. In Pennsylvania, President Judges of the counties are elected by the judges of that county, not appointed by the PA Supreme Court. Are politics involved? Absolutely. Are politics involved if the Supreme Court appoints...yep. It just depends on whose politics you want controlling...local or state. Same thing for the supreme court justices. In PA, they are subject to a retention election every 10 years, which is similar to what Kansas is attempting to do.

As for the defunding issue, basically the legislature is saying that the budget is a whole document. So if anything is deemed unconstitutional, then the whole budget relating to this must be thrown out and start from scratch. It's aggressive, to be sure. It is also very typical of the kind of fights legislators get into with the court. Pennsylvania has certainly had them.

There's this one little problem with the legislature removing administrative authority over lower courts from the state Supreme Court. The Kansas state constitution article three section one says:

The supreme court shall have general administrative authority over all courts in this state.

As for threatening to defund the judiciary if it strikes down a new law, I'm pretty sure that is without precedent in the United States.

[Billy Jingo]

There's this one little problem with the legislature removing administrative authority over lower courts from the state Supreme Court. The Kansas state constitution article three section one says:


As for threatening to defund the judiciary if it strikes down a new law, I'm pretty sure that is without precedent in the United States.

Scratch away the thin veneer of a conservative and you will see the fascism.

[phillygirl]

There's this one little problem with the legislature removing administrative authority over lower courts from the state Supreme Court. The Kansas state constitution article three section one says:


As for threatening to defund the judiciary if it strikes down a new law, I'm pretty sure that is without precedent in the United States.

I'm not sure about that, although I haven't done any research, admittedly. But I can't imagine this is the first time that legislation has stated the non-severability of its parts.

Again, I am simply comparing to what I know, which is Pennsylvania. The Pa Supreme Court has general administrative powers, but that doesn't mean that PJ's are appointed by the Supremes. The Supremes do, however, promulgate rules concerning the general conduct of business in the courts, forms, etc. So I don't necessarily see that as an unconstitutional usurping of the Supreme Court's power in Kansas.

[Norm dePlume]

I'm not sure about that, although I haven't done any research, admittedly. But I can't imagine this is the first time that legislation has stated the non-severability of its parts.

Again, I am simply comparing to what I know, which is Pennsylvania. The Pa Supreme Court has general administrative powers, but that doesn't mean that PJ's are appointed by the Supremes. The Supremes do, however, promulgate rules concerning the general conduct of business in the courts, forms, etc. So I don't necessarily see that as an unconstitutional usurping of the Supreme Court's power in Kansas.

And has the Pennsylvania legislature ever passed a law giving the governor the power to defund the Pennsylvania judiciary conditional on the outcome of a case?

Also, I think you're wrong that this is a severability issue. The law under review is a 2014 law. The law that provides funding for 2015 is the one that includes the stipulation that the funding can be rescinded if the court overrules the 2014 law.

The fight between Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas and the state’s judicial branch has escalated, with the governor last week signing into law a bill that could strip state courts of their funding.

The measure, at the end of a lengthy bill that allocated money for the judiciary this year, stipulates that if a state court strikes down a 2014 law that removed some powers from the State Supreme Court, the judiciary will lose its funding.

[phillygirl]

And has the Pennsylvania legislature ever passed a law giving the governor the power to defund the Pennsylvania judiciary conditional on the outcome of a case?

Also, I think you're wrong that this is a severability issue. The law under review is a 2014 law. The law that provides funding for 2015 is the one that includes the stipulation that the funding can be rescinded if the court overrules the 2014 law.

As I said, I haven't researched it. I'm just looking at a few articles on it. But I don't see anything wrong with putting the right to elect President Judges with the local judges. The Supreme Court would have little knowledge over who should actually run a local court.

[Michele]

Scratch away the thin veneer of a conservative and you will see the fascism.

Is this how it's going to be until the election? You're going to continuously use this vitriol because you're mad Jim Webb isn't in the dem race and you have to vote for Hillary? Well, I have some links that could be good news and settle down your inner-overkill-child.


Why Jim Webb Is the Most Interesting Candidate in the Democratic Primary

Jim Webb to decide on presidential campaign in next two weeks

[Norm dePlume]

As I said, I haven't researched it. I'm just looking at a few articles on it. But I don't see anything wrong with putting the right to elect President Judges with the local judges. The Supreme Court would have little knowledge over who should actually run a local court.

Whatever. It seems to me the larger issue is threatening the judiciary to try and force their decision.

[phillygirl]

Whatever. It seems to me the larger issue is threatening the judiciary to try and force their decision.

Maybe. I was just responding to the issue that the administrative issues were constitutional in nature. I don't see it that way. I still don't have a real handle on the budget and the language in the budget, but I haven't been able to really look into it yet.

[Norm dePlume]

Maybe. I was just responding to the issue that the administrative issues were constitutional in nature. I don't see it that way. I still don't have a real handle on the budget and the language in the budget, but I haven't been able to really look into it yet.

I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it, there is a certain court in Kansas that is fairly expert at deciding what is constitutional under the Kansas state constitution. So I figure that question is in good hands. Unless, of course, someone else is threatening to cut off those hands.

[Billy Jingo]

Slight correction. The attempt was successful. The tax burden has been shifted down the economic ladder.

[phillygirl]

I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it, there is a certain court in Kansas that is fairly expert at deciding what is constitutional under the Kansas state constitution. So I figure that question is in good hands. Unless, of course, someone else is threatening to cut off those hands.

Well, it certainly has nearly the final say.