JAIL - take that supporter off your list.

By -
In a comment tonight under a post I did way back in March, former Constitutional Party chairman Scott Bartlett is seemingly disavowing the Judicial Accountability Act after the JAIL people had listed him as a supporter:
Just a note of interest. There's a huge number of people opposing JAIL. But who is in favor of it? Here's the list from their old site:

Constitution Party of South Dakota
Scott Bartlett, Chairman
Sioux Falls, SD
Phone: 605-361-3094

And in the comments:

7:23 PM, Scott Bartlett said...

Fist of all thanks to the person who thinks I'm nice. Most of the time my kids will agree with you on that. I am no longer the State Chairman of the Constitution Party, I now work as the Midwestern States Area Co-Chairman. Secondly, although judges need reining in and accountability, the J.A.I.L amendment requires an additional layer of government. As a Constitutionalist, I oppose additional layers of government. We need to shrink the government we have. As for "Shaking in your boots" I never thought that was necessary Thanks for your space.

Scott

(my emphasis - pp)

First of all, Scott, thanks for your comments, despite my snarkyness.

Secondly, Scott brings up a very valid comment to consider for those of the constitutional and libertarian parties who may have had leanings towards this measure. And it's equally valid with those members of the major parties who oppose larger government -"the J.A.I.L amendment requires an additional layer of government" and all tne encoutrements that go with it.

That's overhead, administration, salaries, infrastructure, computers, equipment, staff, etcetera. And once it's in place, there are sure to be changes in laws, rules, and other provisions to ensure that our state laws recognize and comply with the requirements of this new branch of government.

A bigger more powerful government is being proposed, courtesy of the Judicial Accountability people.

Not exactly what they were probably hoping for, is it?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Another good reason to vote Constitution party this fall! Vote Willis for Governor! As a Republican, I am fed up with Big Government Rounds, and his cronyism.
11:20 PM
Anonymous said…
Are the Unruhs still avid supporters of J.A.I.L.? Since I haven't read or heard them recant, I must assume they are still supportive of the proposed amendment.
10:25 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A note from Benedict Ar... Sorry. A note from Stan Adelstein why he thinks you should vote Democrat this year.

By -
Image
(Click on letter to enlarge) And while it may not be printed at taxpayer expense, I don't see a disclaimer, either. When they hold the special session (supposedly at the end of November) , since he's left them already, I think his colleagues should expel him from the caucus. Sure. At that point it's only going to be symbolic. But since he's already said he's running again in the near future, sometimes symbolism is enough.
Read more

Corson County information on Klaudt Rape Charges

By -
Here's some of the information on the Corson County Charges: COUNT I That on or about December of 2005, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration with his foster daughter, A.M., through the use of force or coercion; and as to COUNT II That on or about July or August of 2006, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration with his foster daughter, A.M., through the use of force or coercion; and as to COUNT III That on or about July or August of 2006, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration, separate and distinct from the act alleged in Count II, with...
Read more

It's about health, not potential promiscuity.

By -
As the only South Dakota blogger out with 5 daughters, I feel I need to weigh in on the whole discussion that's occurring with regards to the HPV vaccine, and Governor Rounds' proposal to make it available. My family (including my three oldest girls) watched my mom, their grandmother, succumb slowly and painfully to cancer which spread throughout her body. If a similar fate from a different type of cancer was preventable through a simple shot, why wouldn't anyone advocate for it? At the age most of my kids are going to be getting it, they're still playing with barbies, and negative influences such as most of the programming on MTV, and other assorted trashy television is verboten in my house. All they're going to know about this vaccination is that it's a shot, just like for teatnus or measles. They'll go "Ow, I don't want a shot," and that will be it. Just another mark on their vaccination record. One check box for DPT, one for HPV, and so on...
Read more