Jan Ireland
Do Democrats mind the law?
By Jan Ireland
A tiny little situation in Indiana right now brings up an unresolved question. Do democrats mind the law? Depends on what the definition of "mind" is.
There's an unexpectedly vacant seat on the Elkhart City Council. There was an election win, then a loss of the seat for failure to fulfill legal requirements. Re-elected Rod Roberson took his oath January 1, but failed to file that oath with the county clerk's office within the required 30 days. The law views this as vacating the seat, and the Council must fill that vacancy according to statutory law.
At least, Republicans think that they should. Apparently Democrats do not. These Democrats may have been unduly influenced by their party's past.
Huge scandals forced NJ Democrat Senator Robert Torricelli, running for reelection, to resign. This augured a Republican win, since the statutory deadline for replacing him on the ballot had passed. Democrats replaced Torricelli anyway, not minding the law.
Al Gore lost the presidential election by a few votes; conceded to George Bush; unconceded; and demanded designer recounts and multiple court challenges. Though Secretary of State Katharine Harris followed Florida's statutory election law to the letter, the Democrat Florida State Supreme Court was stopped from handing an illegal win to Gore only by the direct intervention of the US Supreme Court.
Bill Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky, smirking that truth depends on what is is. In eight years of scandal, self-aggrandizement and deceit, the Clintons rarely minded the law.
Last year, Democrat legislators in Texas fled the state to try to avoid the congressional redistricting issue. They hid out for weeks, not minding the law that required their presence in Austin when the legislature was in session.
Recently, Massachusetts Supreme Justice Margaret Marshall, by her single tie-breaking vote, ordered the state legislature to implement gay marriage by this summer. Newly elected Democrat San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom simply instructed his staff to begin issuing marriage licenses to gays, and a deluge of marriages have already been performed. A California state judge has just entered a nonbinding cease and desist order against the issuance of the licenses, but Mayor Newsom's spokesperson indicates the issuance of licenses will continue until a judge officially tells them to stop. It remains to be seen whether Marshall's edict will be enacted against the will of the people of Massachusetts.
The Ninth Circuit Court in California has called the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, and were going to stop the California Gray Davis Recall because the ACLU asserted minorities and poor people might be disenfranchised by voting machines — the same voting machines Gray Davis had won on a few months earlier.
Contrast the pattern in these situations with the Democrat response to recent Republican issues.
President Bush's eminently qualified judicial nominees (Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Bill Pryor, etc.) have been unrelentingly filibustered by Democrats. Their Constitutional role is limited to advice and consent, and they are not constitutionally minding the law.
Alabama Supreme Court Justice Judge Roy Moore refused to remove a Ten Commandments Monument from the rotunda near his courtroom, though they are the underpinning of American law, and a representation of them resides in the Supreme Court building. Democrats cite separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is not there, and they are not minding the First Amendment law.
Manuel Miranda reported apparent unethical and possibly illegal behavior on the part of Democrat senators in conjunction with special interest groups and stalling judicial nominees. Democrats accused him of hacking (not the case) and demanded he be fired. Not minding the law.
Democrats in Elkhart have apparently missed the deadline to begin a caucus for a replacement, as their candidate missed the deadline to file his oath. Yet they want to ignore that, so that the decision does not fall back to the Council — which happens to have a majority of Republicans. Despite all their forgetfulness, they demand that only a Democrat should replace Democrat Roberson. But who's to say Elkhart voters would want another forgetful Democrat?
So, do Democrats mind the law? If you mean "mind" as our grandmothers and an earlier generation of teachers did, then no. Democrats don't mind the law. They don't mind the law being there, and they don't mind ignoring it when it stands in the way of something they want. It will be interesting to see what happens with Democrats and this tiny issue in Indiana.
© Jan Ireland
A tiny little situation in Indiana right now brings up an unresolved question. Do democrats mind the law? Depends on what the definition of "mind" is.
There's an unexpectedly vacant seat on the Elkhart City Council. There was an election win, then a loss of the seat for failure to fulfill legal requirements. Re-elected Rod Roberson took his oath January 1, but failed to file that oath with the county clerk's office within the required 30 days. The law views this as vacating the seat, and the Council must fill that vacancy according to statutory law.
At least, Republicans think that they should. Apparently Democrats do not. These Democrats may have been unduly influenced by their party's past.
Huge scandals forced NJ Democrat Senator Robert Torricelli, running for reelection, to resign. This augured a Republican win, since the statutory deadline for replacing him on the ballot had passed. Democrats replaced Torricelli anyway, not minding the law.
Al Gore lost the presidential election by a few votes; conceded to George Bush; unconceded; and demanded designer recounts and multiple court challenges. Though Secretary of State Katharine Harris followed Florida's statutory election law to the letter, the Democrat Florida State Supreme Court was stopped from handing an illegal win to Gore only by the direct intervention of the US Supreme Court.
Bill Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky, smirking that truth depends on what is is. In eight years of scandal, self-aggrandizement and deceit, the Clintons rarely minded the law.
Last year, Democrat legislators in Texas fled the state to try to avoid the congressional redistricting issue. They hid out for weeks, not minding the law that required their presence in Austin when the legislature was in session.
Recently, Massachusetts Supreme Justice Margaret Marshall, by her single tie-breaking vote, ordered the state legislature to implement gay marriage by this summer. Newly elected Democrat San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom simply instructed his staff to begin issuing marriage licenses to gays, and a deluge of marriages have already been performed. A California state judge has just entered a nonbinding cease and desist order against the issuance of the licenses, but Mayor Newsom's spokesperson indicates the issuance of licenses will continue until a judge officially tells them to stop. It remains to be seen whether Marshall's edict will be enacted against the will of the people of Massachusetts.
The Ninth Circuit Court in California has called the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, and were going to stop the California Gray Davis Recall because the ACLU asserted minorities and poor people might be disenfranchised by voting machines — the same voting machines Gray Davis had won on a few months earlier.
Contrast the pattern in these situations with the Democrat response to recent Republican issues.
President Bush's eminently qualified judicial nominees (Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Bill Pryor, etc.) have been unrelentingly filibustered by Democrats. Their Constitutional role is limited to advice and consent, and they are not constitutionally minding the law.
Alabama Supreme Court Justice Judge Roy Moore refused to remove a Ten Commandments Monument from the rotunda near his courtroom, though they are the underpinning of American law, and a representation of them resides in the Supreme Court building. Democrats cite separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is not there, and they are not minding the First Amendment law.
Manuel Miranda reported apparent unethical and possibly illegal behavior on the part of Democrat senators in conjunction with special interest groups and stalling judicial nominees. Democrats accused him of hacking (not the case) and demanded he be fired. Not minding the law.
Democrats in Elkhart have apparently missed the deadline to begin a caucus for a replacement, as their candidate missed the deadline to file his oath. Yet they want to ignore that, so that the decision does not fall back to the Council — which happens to have a majority of Republicans. Despite all their forgetfulness, they demand that only a Democrat should replace Democrat Roberson. But who's to say Elkhart voters would want another forgetful Democrat?
So, do Democrats mind the law? If you mean "mind" as our grandmothers and an earlier generation of teachers did, then no. Democrats don't mind the law. They don't mind the law being there, and they don't mind ignoring it when it stands in the way of something they want. It will be interesting to see what happens with Democrats and this tiny issue in Indiana.
© Jan Ireland
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
