State Supreme Court is comprised of reputable competent members. They make decisions that keep the peace. Their impact is nearly negligible. They have major powers but rarely impose it.
We live in a time when our President tries to rule by decree, and our state legislature uses our court system as a political pawn, until they have enough time to invoke emergency decrees, in order to overcome the will of the people.
For those of you who have actually fought for our country, I must ask. Is this what you fought for? Is this what your buddies died for, or came home for with fewer limbs than they were born with?
Did you and your buddies fight for this country so that someday a major political scandal with millions of dollars of unanswered questions could be settled with a $ 2000 fine? Did you fight so some day only the associates of politicians would be indicted, or where the children of the questioned would be the greatest number of fatalities of a tragic political scandal?
I don’t think so either, but there are some in Pierre who think so, or at least they think you will not notice…..
It is imperative that many people show up at the legislative “Crackle Barrel” coffees this weekend and let your legislators know that you are not happy. And bring a picture to show the legislators of a family member, a friend, or a former buddy, who fought for this country so that we could be free from the realities of undemocratic decrees……
Please name the legislators who voted to support the 50%+ of SD voters who cast a vote in favor of IM22 and in support of allowing the SD Supreme Court to decide the issue.
There are many of us Voters who need this information in November.
I am all for an ethics enforcement review and change in Pierre. However, IM22, was not a good propoasal. For a group (such as SD Dems) to propose an initiative that allows public financing of some candidates, not all candidates, is ludicrous. SDDems rallied last year that the legislature was attempting to limit 3rd party and independent ballot access, yet they propose and support an amendment that does the same by only allowing a certain amount of public funds to support a limited number of candidates, not ALL candidates. This does not even approach the other conflicting issues surrounding the appointment of such an ethics board and its constitutional conflicts.
Thomas: then you ask the legislature to amend and expand the law following its implementation to add classes of candidates who may receive public funds.
Conflicts in law are worked out by the courts. Do you believe it is reasonable to expect part time legislators have the knowledge and inclination to produce seamless and complex laws? No matter where it starts – by IM or the Legislature – significant changes in public policy are court tested.
Killing the IM because you didn’t get everything you want in the original language means you get nothing.
To much government. Not enough action. Many Trump policies seem to work. One is for every new law two must be withdrawn. He’s bringing back offshore corporate activity creating jobs and tax revenue. A 20% import duty on Mexico to build a wall is genius. I don’t like Trump but he’s surrounded himself with good advisors.
Thomas, why didn’t the opponents of IM 22 effectively air all of these concerns prior to the election, that they now have? All that the opponents primarily said were vote “NO” on everything and, oh yah, IM 22 and other measures “are sponsored and funded by east coast liberal interests….”
I would suggest that the opponents of IM 22 really did not want to have the debate on the particulars of the Measure during the campaign, because they were hoping that IM 22 and its underlying concerns would fail and just go away. But now these same opponents have the audacity to critique the passed Measure and claim now, that they are the true champions of government ethics and campaign finance reform. Even though, we would not even be having this whole discussion, if it was not for the proponents of IM 22 and their efforts to begin with…..
Even if the current legislature ends up passing legislation of value this session concerning ethics and campaign finance reform, it will be fair to say that such legislation is the legislature’s adopted child ripped from the hands of the majority of the voters and the proponents of IM 22 with the legislature attempting to claim all of the glory and its birth right as well…. You just watch……
State Supreme Court is comprised of reputable competent members. They make decisions that keep the peace. Their impact is nearly negligible. They have major powers but rarely impose it.
We live in a time when our President tries to rule by decree, and our state legislature uses our court system as a political pawn, until they have enough time to invoke emergency decrees, in order to overcome the will of the people.
For those of you who have actually fought for our country, I must ask. Is this what you fought for? Is this what your buddies died for, or came home for with fewer limbs than they were born with?
Did you and your buddies fight for this country so that someday a major political scandal with millions of dollars of unanswered questions could be settled with a $ 2000 fine? Did you fight so some day only the associates of politicians would be indicted, or where the children of the questioned would be the greatest number of fatalities of a tragic political scandal?
I don’t think so either, but there are some in Pierre who think so, or at least they think you will not notice…..
It is imperative that many people show up at the legislative “Crackle Barrel” coffees this weekend and let your legislators know that you are not happy. And bring a picture to show the legislators of a family member, a friend, or a former buddy, who fought for this country so that we could be free from the realities of undemocratic decrees……
Please name the legislators who voted to support the 50%+ of SD voters who cast a vote in favor of IM22 and in support of allowing the SD Supreme Court to decide the issue.
There are many of us Voters who need this information in November.
I am all for an ethics enforcement review and change in Pierre. However, IM22, was not a good propoasal. For a group (such as SD Dems) to propose an initiative that allows public financing of some candidates, not all candidates, is ludicrous. SDDems rallied last year that the legislature was attempting to limit 3rd party and independent ballot access, yet they propose and support an amendment that does the same by only allowing a certain amount of public funds to support a limited number of candidates, not ALL candidates. This does not even approach the other conflicting issues surrounding the appointment of such an ethics board and its constitutional conflicts.
Thomas: then you ask the legislature to amend and expand the law following its implementation to add classes of candidates who may receive public funds.
Conflicts in law are worked out by the courts. Do you believe it is reasonable to expect part time legislators have the knowledge and inclination to produce seamless and complex laws? No matter where it starts – by IM or the Legislature – significant changes in public policy are court tested.
Killing the IM because you didn’t get everything you want in the original language means you get nothing.
To much government. Not enough action. Many Trump policies seem to work. One is for every new law two must be withdrawn. He’s bringing back offshore corporate activity creating jobs and tax revenue. A 20% import duty on Mexico to build a wall is genius. I don’t like Trump but he’s surrounded himself with good advisors.
Thomas, why didn’t the opponents of IM 22 effectively air all of these concerns prior to the election, that they now have? All that the opponents primarily said were vote “NO” on everything and, oh yah, IM 22 and other measures “are sponsored and funded by east coast liberal interests….”
I would suggest that the opponents of IM 22 really did not want to have the debate on the particulars of the Measure during the campaign, because they were hoping that IM 22 and its underlying concerns would fail and just go away. But now these same opponents have the audacity to critique the passed Measure and claim now, that they are the true champions of government ethics and campaign finance reform. Even though, we would not even be having this whole discussion, if it was not for the proponents of IM 22 and their efforts to begin with…..
Even if the current legislature ends up passing legislation of value this session concerning ethics and campaign finance reform, it will be fair to say that such legislation is the legislature’s adopted child ripped from the hands of the majority of the voters and the proponents of IM 22 with the legislature attempting to claim all of the glory and its birth right as well…. You just watch……
The legislature missed 2 great opportunities.
Show the voter how gullible they are. Blame the liberals who gave us IM22 after the voters were forced to eat it.
Now the repubs are to blame for not following the will of the people. Blake Curd could be easy game if only an opposition party could get in the game.
Blake Curd is starting to resemble a gazing ball.