Amendment E Update and A Rebuttal

I received an interesting comment to my previous post on South Dakota's Amendment E. Apparently the sponsor of the bill was not in agreement with me. As I am against this amendment, I am not surprised, yet as Bubba of the Plains makes it clear, my arguments were supported.

Here is Bill Stegmeier's post:

Bill Stegmeier said...

So your cockles are cozy. How 'bout your "brass ovaries"?

You say "An amendment is not what is needed nor advisable to correct bad actions. Legislation, yes."

The purpose of Amendment E is the to hold judges accountable for misconduct in the course of their proceedings. If we had put this forth as legislation it could easily be re-legislated "from the bench" by a single judge! Yes, if was deemed unconstitutional. Judges do not pass legislation or even re-legislate. They measure laws and actions versus the constitution. What does not match up gets judged as such. It is up to the legisltors and law enforcement to enforce. At times in our history that has not happened; which supports the point that judges do not legislate.

In roughly paragraph seven you say "Beyond that what happens here is that judges are now no longer able to deliberate with immunity." Yes, because that is what it does. The Amendment is so poorly written that folks will be able to sue without burden. The amendment, as I stated previously, instructs jurors to favor the plaintiff from the beginning. Favortism is not justice. It will influence how a judge proceeds therefore how he/she deliberates.

You appear to be implying that Amendment E has something to do with a judge's final decision. It does not. It has everything to do with how the judge conducts his proceeding on the way to his final decision. And this DOES NOT influence the decision process? The steps to the decision do not influence the end result? Are you nuts? Re-read section 2. It says "Immunity. No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State for any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States, notwithstanding Common Law, or any other contrary statute." But the South Dakota Constitution already has means to combat judicial misconduct. Its called the appeal process and liberally, all citizens of South Dakota can access the Supreme Court to have their case heard. There also is the Judicial Qualifications Commission and last but not least ELECTIONS!

It's how the judge conducts his proceedings, not his final decision. Again, I say

In roughly paragraph ten you say "The people have no business having power over the courts." Yup and especially you, Bill. I wish this had been alot of energy toward an issue you and those in your state need help with. But by your own acknowledgement this amendment isn't based on evidence of need. Its precient in a way, right? You looked into your crystal 8 ball and saw that this was not evidenced yet but might be, so lets amend the constitution for something that might happen sometime?

If not the people, who? The King? Well you sexist devil, you. It could be a Queen. It is the process which has power over the judges. Please avail yourself the information out there on how the judicial process works. And Bill, it does work, even in your state, which again, leads me to ask 'why the hell this is being done anyway?'

You're and elitist, aren't you? Jeez Bill, you say that like its supposed to hurt. The only people I've ever hear use that term negatively were sadly ill-educated, righteous in their ignorance and afraid of the smart people.

Bill Stegmeier
Sponsor of Amendment E

There's Just Not Enough Windex

Glass houses must need alot of Windex, yet this week proved there's just not enough in this world to keep the neocons' and evangelicals' side-by-side clean.

The Foley investigation will yield far more mud than we'll have paper towels to clean it up with.

The war in Iraq will be the worst military decision in the history of mankind and this includes trumping Hannibal's elephant brigade dying in the Italian Alps.

The Repubs will lose the House, possibly the Senate and alot of states races, too.

And another Evangelical TopDog has been found lighting his wick at both ends.

Oh and in case you missed this-No longer fish out of water but water out of fish in 42 years.