Posted on 10/23/2006 8:56:34 PM PDT by calcowgirl
October 23, 2006, 6:00 PM
Today we were contacted by the Attorney Generals Office and the Secretary of State. Each expressed that they would seek to join the lawsuit as nominal defendants in an effort to be heard in this matter. Although the Plaintiffs are skeptical of the motives of the existing AG Bill Lockyer, we felt that the interests of justice would dictate that we agree to allow them to join the suit without opposition.
We agree that they probably have an interest in the outcome of the suit given that it affects their offices. Further, we believe that this matter should be heard in an expedited fashion and without further delay. By agreeing to stipulate to adding those parties, we trust that it will expedite the case and they will not abuse our act of good faith.
That is in marked contrast to the Brown camp who has made it difficult to serve Mr. Brown and who apparently will be fighting to prevent any hearing occurring before the election.
We did not accept the request for the CA Democrat Party to join the lawsuit because we do not see the legal justification for that request. We believe that it is politically motivated and, although this suit is brought on the eve of an election and thus cant help to be political in some sense, we believe this suit is about the rule of law, not a particular party the reason the Republican Party did not join the suit at the outset. As such, we would like to keep the partisanship of this lawsuit to a minimum. We, therefore, turned down their request to stipulate to adding them to the suit. They apparently will seek to join anyway.
Finally, any suggestion by the Brown camp that this suit is not important or insubstantial should once and for all be cast aside given the interest of two of the constitutional offices of our state government.
Wow, this is the first I have heard of this.....veddy interestink. I wonder if the LA Times has reported on this?
I quit wondering a long time ago...
If anything, it is classic. The law means what it says, unless Democrats don't like it because it doesn't benefit them. Then, the law means something else. The court should slap Brown and Lockyer down. But I don't think it will.
What would be my scenario would be is for the court to rule that Brown in ineligible to be A.G. at this time. Then, Brown wins. And then the Governor states he is going to follow the direction of the court and declare the position vacant, and then appoint Poochigian and swear him in.
Yippee-kai-yay!
Excellent point. I believe Governor Wilson may have cut or reduced funding to the State Bar, and it may have been restored by Governor Davis. My gut feeling is tha the Bar was functioning by the time Brown filed for the A.G. position. I'll have to try to research it later. I found a little here though.
"Wilson vetoes fee bill; bar moves to secure funding"
Are you asking if they have reported on the lawsuit, or on this latest move by the AG and SOS? They did publish a story about the lawsuit a few days ago when it was filed. I couldn't find anything on the latter. They've probably been distracted publishing things like this:
Jerry Brown -- California's Marathon Man
The candidate for attorney general is one of a dying breed of politicians who govern by their values and experience, rather than polls.
By Martin F. Nolan, MARTIN F. NOLAN covered national politics for the Boston Globe for 40 years.
October 22, 2006
It's always good fun when the Rats begin to circle the wagons...
Problem is that Arnold would rather appoint an enviro-weenie dem.
Would you please add me to your California Politics ping list. thanks
That would be a first.
-PJ
God I hope not.
I was wondering if they are joining in order to sabotage the case. Given they are RATS, one can only assume this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.