JAIL slapped down yet again. Supremes say No as JAILers quit denying that JAIL applies to School board members, city commissioners, et.al.

According to the Associated Press as printed in the Rapid City Journal this morning, the South Dakota Supreme Court decided to just say NO when it comes to anything the Judicial Accoutability people want:
The South Dakota Supreme Court has refused to order any further changes in the wording that will appear on ballots to explain a proposed constitutional amendment that would let people sue judges and other government officials.

and..

The amendment’s main sponsor, businessman Bill Stegmeier of Tea, wanted the Supreme Court to require that the ballot explanation be changed to say that the measure would let people sue judges for deliberately violating their rights. He also wanted it to say the measure’s purpose is to hold judges and other officials accountable for such violations.

“The only way to make this ballot statement accurate in all respects is to include language in the explanation that informs the voters that this amendment seeks to hold those persons claiming to be shielded by judicial immunity ‘accountable for deliberate violations of law,”’ lawyer Tara Glasford wrote in her arguments to the Supreme Court.

The attorney general’s office argued that Long’s ballot explanation is accurate and is an objective, clear and simple summary.

Long’s ballot explanation says the measure would allow lawsuits and criminal charges not only against judges, but also against members of city councils, county commissions, school boards and other government officials who make judicial decisions.

The amendment’s sponsors initially sought to have the reference to those other government officials removed from the attorney general’s explanation, but they dropped that issue in the appeal to the Supreme Court.

“We observe that the applicant has abandoned the argument that Constitutional Amendment E applies only to judges,” Sabers wrote in the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Read it here and weep as JAIL fails once again. "We observe that the applicant has abandoned the argument that Constitutional Amendment E applies only to judges" Damn. That's got to sting, since the three and four star JAILers have been killing themselves trying to obfuscate that fact (especially since that they themselves had told people that JAIL applied to non-judges).

Bill Stegmeier is finding out this morning that words can be a painful thing. Especially when they belong to yourself. And the Attorney General.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

State to UFWS: It's over