From Portage Northern.
- Member for
- 4 years 49 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|17 hours 40 min ago||No way||
Two VERY different systems of punishment, with different standards of proof, rules of evidence, etc. No one suspended for steroids is ever convicted of anything. No one suspended for bumping an official or attempting to injure an opponent is ever convicted of anything. Tropp and Conboy never saw a courtroom.
In this case, there are witnesses to Ray Rice punching a woman in the face. There is video of him DRAGGING an unconscious woman out of an elevator. Conviction or no, you suspend his ass for WAY longer than two games.
|2 days 6 hours ago||What I know:||
Run the blade flat-wise on your skin, NOT long-edge-wise on your skin. I'll never make THAT mistake a sixth time...
|2 days 14 hours ago||Indeed||
And there are no other variables...
|2 days 14 hours ago||You divided by zero.||
You divided by zero.
|2 days 14 hours ago||MIKE JONES||
|2 days 17 hours ago||More Seven Nation Army||
More Seven Nation Army
|3 days 15 hours ago||Indeed.||
It shall be done, possibly in a follow-up/recap edition.
|3 days 16 hours ago||I always appreciated you analyses...||
...but I appreciate it even MORE this week.
|1 week 13 hours ago||Yeah||
And they say Penn State fans are conspiratorial...
|1 week 15 hours ago||The problem is||
Which one? Odds are, if you took one of Kalis, Bosch, and Magnuson, you'd have a heck of a player in there. But it'd be gambling when you only have five players and don't get the luxury of boom-or-bust prospects.
|1 week 2 days ago||Your complain has been noted||
And forwarded to the office of complaints in the complaint division.
(Seth. That's Seth.)
|1 week 3 days ago||But you know what IS a good one?||
|1 week 3 days ago||When I say "no prayer"||
I'm not saying this is a David vs. Goliath case where the little guy faces a great uphill struggle despite being buoyed by the forces of good. I'm saying this is the case where the plaintiff is just legally wrong. Really, really wrong. The State Constitution says so. They have NO case. None.
The power the regents have to do business in this manner is protected by a document that requires a statewide vote of the electorate to change. No lawsuit can change it unless the Supreme Court has changed its mind on a pretty easy question of interpretation in the last decade.
Taking on the issue is fine. But the suit is frivolous as hell.
|1 week 3 days ago||That reminds me||
Of one of my all-time favorite filings:
|1 week 3 days ago||For future reference||
Was it because we talked about Kurtis Drummond too much? Or because we didn't talk about Kurtis Drummond enough?
|1 week 3 days ago||FWIW||
This is pretty standard for a first offense. For those (like myself) who don't believe his punishment should be harsher, or less harsh, because he plays football, this seems about right.
|1 week 3 days ago||I pray thee||
In the name of all that is holy, read this. The exemptions outlined in the law are irrelevant, because article 8, section 4 of the 1963 Constitution trumps it. They are CONSTITUTIONALLY permitted to regularly conduct business in informal meetings behind closed doors, so long as they properly hold any formal meetings. It is 100% within their power to go behind closed doors, decide how to vote, and then go into a formal meeting to vote. Don't like it? Blame the 1963 ConCon.
|1 week 3 days ago||...||
they aren't just allowed to discuss some matters in informal sessions they are allowed to discuss all matters in informal sessions as long as they do the voting in formal sessions so they are not violating the law because they are not subject to that law because the state constitution says they aren't subject to that law and the michigan supreme court says they aren't subject to that law and you don't get to file a suit against someone who isn't violating the law you claim they are violating and oh god my brain just fell out and is running away and yep it just stole my car and now I am brainless and without a ride
|1 week 3 days ago||Okay, I'm only saying this one last time||
Because my forehead is getting sore, and the desk is starting to crack:
YOU DON'T GET TO SUE SOMEONE FOR DOING SOMETHING THAT IS WITHIN THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS BUT IS "BAD PRACTICE" OR IS "NOT A GOOD IDEA." THE THING THE REGENTS ARE DOING IS LEGAL. THE STATE SUPREME COURT SAYS SO. THE STATE CONSTITUTION SAYS SO. I SAY SO. THE FREE PRESS CAN WRITE A THOUSAND OP-EDS BEMOANING THE SECRECY AND LACK OF TRANSPARENCY, AND THAT'S FINE AND WELL AND PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA. BUT YOU CAN. NOT. SUE. THEM. FOR. THIS.
|1 week 3 days ago||Fair point||
But the decision was less than a decade ago, and this is basically the same question they just answered. And the state constitution is pretty darned clear on the issue: the universities and the legislature are basically co-equals. The legislature can't impose OMA restrictions on the way Universities operate.
|1 week 3 days ago||Fine||
But you don't get to sue for a violation of the SPIRIT of a law, especially when it is a law that the defendant is constitutionally exempted. That's all I'm saying. The lawsuit lacks in any merit, and will not survive a preliminary motion to dismiss.
|1 week 3 days ago||They can do everything privately||
A 2005 cout decision involving Oakland U clarified that the constitutional autonomy that allowed public universities to conduct searches in private applied to ALL university business. They are exempt from the OMA in that regard for all issues. http://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/court-of-appeals-unpublished/2005/20050830-c252391-43-252391-opn.html
|1 week 3 days ago||Actually, I misspoke||
The legislature can't even change this issue. This is one that is woven into the very fabric of the state constitution. Michigan public universities enjoy constitutional autonomy, which means that the legislature can't tell them shit. The OMA barely applies to UofM.
|1 week 3 days ago||Okay, then tell me this||
You're a lawyer. Someone walks into your office and says "we want to sue some guys to make them stop doing something we think is bad. It isn't illegal, necessarily, but it's still bad. So we want to file a lawsuit claiming they are violating a law they aren't violating in the hopes that it will get them to change."
How are you, as an officer of the court, going to react? Are you going to say, "sure, the lawsuit has no merit, but we should file it anyway," or say, "gee, I agree that the thing is bad, but I am ethically bound to not file a claim I believe to be without merit"?
|1 week 3 days ago||Totally agree||
I have no problem with the sentiment. And if a citizen watchdog group file the same action, I'd be more sympathetic (while still probably pointing out it was doomed beyond doomed). But when the Freep does something like this, I can't generate much more than a loud farting noise in their direction.
I suppose I never really answered your question though; yes, the state Supreme Court can reverse its own ruling. But on questions of the interpretation of a specific statute, once they weigh in, that's pretty much the ballgame. They won't rule on the same issue again.
|1 week 3 days ago||It isn't a frivolous issue||
But it is very much a frivolous suit. For whatever you think of the way the Regents operate, they (and many, many other public institutions including the state legislature) operate under the rules as set forth in statute and as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The regents are, from the best I can tell, acting within the bounds of exiting law, even if they don't meet with the highest aspirations of those laws.
This is a political issue, not a legal one. The legislature can change the law if it wants, but that's the only recourse. You can't sue someone for violating the law as you wish it was. That's the definition of frivolous.
As for raising attention to the issue, they're the goddamn Detroit Free Press. They have a giant (though admittedly shrinking) platform to raise the issue. The lawsuit is a cheap attempt to try to grab clicks.
|1 week 4 days ago||It's a little of both||
It's a loophole in the law a the law was interpreted by the Michigan Supreme Court. That's why this pisses me off; the Freep is suing Michigan even though they are complying with the law because they (the Freep) wish the law was different. That makes it, as I mentioned earlier, shit. Their beef with this aspect of the law should be with the legislature and the drafters of the latest version of the Constitution. Not the regents.
|1 week 4 days ago||To be clear||
I have no opinion about whether the Regents should be more transparent. What I'm saying is that regardless of whether they are obeying the SPIRIT of the law, they aren't breaking the LAW of the law. So the lawsuit is shit.
The state legislature and the state constitution decide the scope of "accountability" public bodies need to adhere to. And generally speaking, accountability for elected officials comes in the form of, like, ELECTIONS. So when entities file frivolous lawsuits that have no hope of success in the name of trying to make a point, that pisses me off.
|1 week 4 days ago||So...||
You know what they call it when someone takes advantage of legal loopholes? They call it "acting within the law."
|1 week 4 days ago||Which is all well and good...||
...except that the actual suit they filed has absolutely no prayer whatsoever.