Man, I'm disappointed. Tim at Progressive on the Prairie has moved ahead of me in the "Hated by JAIL rankings"

Rats. From looking at the post over at A Progressive on the Priaire tonight, and on the Amendment E, I think I've dropped in the ranks.

No more do I hold the position of most annoying blogger or bliegger or whatever name they choose to use for bloggers exploring the multiple negative aspects of the South Dakota Judicial Accountability Act.

Tim has clearly pulled ahead of me in the ranks of those annoying the Judicial Accountability Actors. Here's what they have to say about us in bold type (which makes it all the more important):

Consider political operatives Larry Mann, Pat Powers, or attorney Tim Gebhart, (Gebhart blogs so often one wonders how many clients Aren't being served). To a one their relentless personal attacks against individuals, including Amendment E sponsor Bill Stegmeier, shows a desire to win-at-all costs.

After a while, their campaigns of DIS-information, their relentless personal attacks so Un-American on Stegmeier, and his choice of employees, began to remind us of another man. A powerful man, also given to thundering personal attacks against Americans. A famous man. In fact, a former Judge. Think about that the next time you read of a personal attack by one of these political operatives. Or just rent the movie, Good Night and Good Luck, and treat yourself to an education on motives behind dirty politics.

Fortunately, we believe their tactics will backfire. We believe South Dakotans are up for a change. Holding judges accountable is the first step in protecting judicial independence from special interest groups. Ultimately, this single act will restore faith in government.

While the truth about Amendment E is here...not on blog sites of lawyers and political operatives doing nothing more than engaging in dirty politics. After all, if a lawyer is against it, it's probably a good idea.

So, we're dirty for calling them on the carpet, and they can throw a little lawyer bashing in against Tim for good measure. Here's a statement on their website that Tim pointed out, which is interesting when taken in conjunction with the fact they've hired an attorney:

Almost immediately, law firms representing banks, government, and health care firms began encouraging lobbyists and attorneys to blog their anti-equality spin. While refusing to state why equality for all isn't a good idea, their shrill cries against equality reveal their true agenda; attempting to influence.

Of these, perhaps Tim Gebhart's blog is the most boring. Granted, although boring isn't illegal just yet

So, are we to assume they're going to attempt to use legal means to squelch people who don't care for the Juducal Accountability Measure? Which seems like a conundrum to me when in one breath they bash lawyers, and in the next they're talking about what's illegal or not, "just yet."

Fortunately, the truth, and opinion is still reasonably protected.

And let's talk about the truth. The truth is that little thing that the primary backers of the Judicial Accountability Act don't want people to talk about.

They don't want to get into too much detail about Ron Branson, the person who wrote the measure. They don't want to go into a lot of detail about how the measure originated and failed attempts were made to place it on the ballot elsewhere before they managed to get it placed on the ballot in South Dakota.

Either they don't want to, or at this moment are unable to name any instances of a South Dakota judge committing acts that would fall under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury. They'd rather couch their arguments in support of the measure in terms of stories that happen outside of South Dakota.

Aside from amending the South Dakota Constitution's Bill of Rights, they have yet to fully and adequately explain how Amendment E would change the South Dakota Constitution. Just from a quick examination, the amendments provided by the measure would immediately change the state constitution into a self-contadictory mess. I'm not sure if anyone knows whether or not the measure could be enforced if we so misfortunate to have it pass.

I would go on, but I'm going to save it for something I'm working on intended for the mainstream media on the topic.

As I come towards the end of this blogpost, I want to point out one of the 10 questions that I just did with Bill Stegmeier. Specifically, his response to the question of JAIL on where it fits within the system of government every state in the union enjoys:

Is the Special Grand Jury intended to be part of the Judicial Branch of Government, or will it be part of the Executive Branch?

Answer: It is not intended to be part of either the Judicial or the Executive Branch of government. One might call the "Special Grand Jury" the "citizen's branch" of government, as it is comprised not of government officials but of citizens who are empowered by the Amendment to "check" the judicial branch.

So what would the special grand jury be? Certainly not a place of law. By desriptions provided by those who promote it, it's outside of the current stucture of government. It gives itself measures of preeminence. It "liberally construes allegations in favor of the complainant." And when asked who the accused could appeal to, the response was "considering the judge would have just received a higher standard of justice than any citizen is presently afforded, why should the convicted judge even want to appeal?"

I suspect the last time we saw a court of this measure was when Tomás de Torquemada walked the earth.

And that should scare the crap out of everyone who lives and votes in South Dakota.

---

In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.

— Massachusetts Constitution, Part The First, art. XXX (1780).