La Cervecera Goes to Court Today

Jan BrewerJan Brewer’s lawyers go to court today for a hearing to see if they have enough of a case to force the legislators to present her the budget so she can veto it. You can check out the precedings yourself. Don’t expect a ruling today. In fact, today’s case is just a hearing on whether the case will be heard at all.

Few people think that she’ll be successful in this endeavor; both the constitution and the calendar look to be against her. Matter of fact, she is rumored to be close to a deal with Republican leaders that looks unaffected by what happens in this case. The deal centers around her being given a free hand to line-item veto certain parts of the bill and the legislature passing “trailers” that are more to her liking plus a referendum on a tax increase. It is hard to believe that this quixotic court case strengthened her hand in negotiations. What the court case does, however, is give her a bit of cover with the public when she signs a budget with cuts in popular programs and raises taxes. She can complain that the court made her do it, which is always a good way to look like a strong executive.

Funny thing, somehow Janet Napolitano was always able to walk away from these fights with a smile on her face. Why is it Brewer is unable to do that even when her own party is running the show?

NB – Jan Brewer drawing by Arnulfo Bermudez.

13 thoughts on “La Cervecera Goes to Court Today

  1. Yeah, its easy to walk away with a smile when you abdicate all responsibility and move you and your entourage into some other cushy job far away from the real world. That’s real leadership!

  2. While I agree with Steve about Napolitano leaving, I can only saw blaw and purggggge to the thought that Brewer and the GOP can use the Court for cover.

    Her budget sucks…the Legislatures is horrific.

    We cannot let this go.

  3. The court argument thus far is not looking good for Brewer but havent heard the legislature’s attorneys yet

  4. The Legislatures attorney I thought was horrible… There were even a few times where the Justices were like doesn’t this seem to help the Governor’s case…

    I actually thought Brewer’s attorney was much better, although I do not think it will help her much…

  5. One thing that our state’s administration has done right is that Arizona has just taken a major step towards dismantling race and gender preferences and discrimination in state and local government. Yesterday, the state Senate voted to place an initiative on the 2010 general election ballot barring discrimination against – or preferential treatment for – any individual on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. The Arizona House approved identical legislation last week.

    Senator Russell Pearce, sponsor of the Senate version of the measure noted: “Affirmative Action and other forms of race and gender based preferences have created an uneven playing field for too long in Arizona. Now our voters will have a chance to put an end to this form of government discrimination once and for all.”

  6. Unfortunately, I couldn’t attend the argument, but I’ve read all the briefs. I’m not sure who the “few” people are that are giving the governor’s legal argument a good chance, but I’m certainly one of them. Her briefs were much more coherent and concise. In particular, her briefs did a nice job addressing the two key issues: a) whether presenting the budget is a ministerial or discretionary act; and b) whether one can read into the state constitution some sort of reasonable time frame for doing the presenting, in the absence of an express deadline. The Legislature’s brief — which started with a quote from Burke — was an odd combination of snark and semi-coherent right-wing philosophy. It read a bit like a pro se pleading from a prison inmate who’s taken a lot of philosophy classes.

  7. To weigh in again, after watching the questioning of the legislature’s attorney, I am now skeptical about what I said earlier. I think the Gov. does have a chance here. Justice McGregor made a few points about the history of legislature’s presenting the bills on time. Also, Hurwitz was skeptical but did make an interesting point about whether the Senate President had signed the bill. I think he was getting at what point the bills were considered by law to be “passed”. If they were “passed” then it looks like the constitution requires it to be sent to the Governor and immediately. The argument seemed to get at whether the Senate prez had not yet “officially” passed the bills with regard to process after the vote.

    Anyway, the argument was certainly spirited and led me to believe that the justices were certainly THINKING about ruling in favor of the Gov.

  8. As to Linus’ rather strange point…this really sucks. Be afraid, be very afraid. What this type of law meant in state’s like California was that there were far far fewer students of color admitted to the top UC schools. This so called interest in merit, whatever that means, results in SAT scores being used to strike many out of educational opportunities even though grades may be fine. So what, you might ask? Well, the so what is that minority students typically do not test as well on standardized tests. It is partially because better funded (and largely white) school districts have the dough to prepare students for the exams, some parents have the dough to send kids to private testing centers to learn to take the test, and in other cases, the so called “merit” really captures those that come out of good schools versus those that come out of not so well supported schools.

  9. Being a state employee its sad that they are playing politics with people’s lives. And now that the Surpremes have refused to rule we are headed for a shutdown. I hope Burns et al are happy. I have a very conservative friend at work here and she is livid. She has been emailing Burns left and right, sadly no response to one of his own.

  10. I’ve served on hiring committees in my professional field many times, and in all cases it was at an employer which followed affirmative action hiring practices.

    First of all, before we even got an affirmative action report, we screened all applicantions and rejected those who did not meet our qualifications. So the idea that affirmative action causes unqualified people to even be considered is false, period.

    Then we still went through and selected who we would without regard for factors like race and gender, because we wanted to be successful and do the best job we could, which requires the more qualified candidate. In fact, I’ve only seen one time when affirmative action even decided anything, and that was when a hiring committee I was on split down the middle and couldn’t agree– so by the procedure we were operating under we hired the candidate endorsed by the affirmative action office.

    So I have seen affirmative action used ONE time, and that was in a case where there was no consensus about who the best candidate was anyway. BUT, I’m glad that we did have that guideline because otherwise we might still be arguing since the hiring committee was completely deadlocked.

  11. Delano,

    I suspect they will make a last minute deal but it will be a horrible deal that creates lasting damage that it will likely take decades to undo.

    Hope your friend is happy, because she voted for it.

  12. I am just going to keep saying “Eli is right”…until he messses up of course (smile)

Comments are closed.