Do not parse words with me.
When you say she has a strong case, which you did on several occasions right on this thread, you ARE claiming she is right.
Now, answer my question: where does it say that this commission abides by different rules than all the others; where does it SPECIFICALLY say that there will be NO appointed to fill out terms? And where does it say SPECIFICALLY that ANY new appointee appointed to fulfill a term has six years?
Ok, I will back down here. I don't know enough about other precedents or the history of this particular law to make a true assessment if I think she has a strong case. For all I know a similar challenge was already made and the SC rules against her interpretation.
My point has been from the outset that this lady's posistion is not totally without merit which is where everyone on FR has started with their opinion.
I didn't like what I read when I read the actual wording of the law and I have to say her argument soes have merit (If I "said strong case" then I was clearly overstating my case), sorry.