Well, that's not the way Rick titled the post, and let's be clear: Rick did NOT SAY what's in the title to this post.
...the fact remains that she has yet to address and distinguish Goodland v. Zimmerman. I understand the argument that the Open Meetings law has created, sub silentio, an exception to Goodland. I don't buy it. To say that the legislature is subject to the open meetings law doesn't mean that the normal rule against enjoining publication is inapplicable.
...[A local gadfly says that] the court has properly considered and concluded that apparently controlling Supreme Court precedent is "insignificant." Maybe so, but one would have expected her to tell the public - in the decision explaining her conclusion - why that is the case...
...She obviously thinks that the LRB was subject to her initial order - presumably because they are, to use the legal term, a "privy" of the Secretary of State. A "privy" is normally someone who acts at the direction of - or in concert with - a party before the court. But the LRB does not act at the direction of the Secretary of State.
What she has not done is enjoin implementation of the law - although she apparently said from the bench that she was doing just that. [Talk is cheap.] While she has enjoined the Secretary of State from any further application of Act 10, he has nothing to do with implementing the Act.
...but even if she ultimately finds that it is not in effect, she does not have the right parties before it to enjoin implementation. I am doubtful that the LRB is "in privy" with the Secretary of State, but I am sure that the Secretary of Administration (who is appointed by a different constitutional officer) is not.
One wonders if she knows whose courtroom she entered this morning--or ANY morning.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment