|
|
|
PITTSBURG —
One might think that Gov. Sam Brownback’s biggest competition is the opposite party. At one time, that may have been correct.
But Democrats are of such a minority in the Kansas Legislature that they couldn’t even successfully pull off a filibuster, let alone any real opposition to Brownback’s plans.
Rather, Brownback’s biggest opposition had been from his own party. Moderate Republicans tended to join forces with Democrats to occasionally tell the governor no. So Brownback dealt with their opposition by helping to sweep most of those moderate Republicans from the state Legislature in the next election cycle.
The current Legislature, both House and Senate, are made up of a majority, if not a supermajority, of conservative Republicans.
When someone who gets everything they want hears no, they lash out. And that’s exactly what’s happening between the governor and the judicial branch right now.
On Jan. 11, a three-judge panel found that the Kansas Legislature (largely following Brownback’s recommendations) had not been providing a suitable education, as is the Constitutional requirement. In order to “suitably” fund K-12 education, the governor would need to add more than $400 million to the budget. Every year.
So Brownback lashed out. In his State of the State address on Jan. 15, Brownback levied harsh words at the way judges are selected, because if you can’t change the ruling, then change the court itself.
Currently, a commission made up of a majority of Bar Association members presents a list of three most qualified applicants to the governor, who then chooses from the list. Brownback wants to select the judges directly, claiming the Bar Association is a special interest group. It could be, perhaps, but it was crafted as a defense against politics determining judicial selection.
But Brownback wants to directly select judges, specifically those that agree with him. The Senate has already passed Brownback’s plan. The Bar Association has even offered to give up its majority in the nomination process, to little avail.
Furthermore, Brownback has called for mediation in the school finance case. He wants the court to appoint someone to negotiate with the schools so he doesn’t lose as badly as the court has decided. In essence, he wants to avoid the consequences of the court’s decision by debating the terms of his loss.
When someone says no to Brownback, he has found a way to crush them. The judicial branch is the last group with any power to say no, so he’s started the process to change the court and change the ruling.
When someone who gets everything they want hears no, they can do two things: either accept the obstacle and find something else, or continue on in spite of opposition. The governor is doing all he can to continue on in spite of judicial opposition. We’ll soon find out if this is another hurdle he can overcome or the first group who has the power to stop him.
— For the Morning Sun
One might think that Gov. Sam Brownback’s biggest competition is the opposite party. At one time, that may have been correct.
But Democrats are of such a minority in the Kansas Legislature that they couldn’t even successfully pull off a filibuster, let alone any real opposition to Brownback’s plans.
Rather, Brownback’s biggest opposition had been from his own party. Moderate Republicans tended to join forces with Democrats to occasionally tell the governor no. So Brownback dealt with their opposition by helping to sweep most of those moderate Republicans from the state Legislature in the next election cycle.
The current Legislature, both House and Senate, are made up of a majority, if not a supermajority, of conservative Republicans.
When someone who gets everything they want hears no, they lash out. And that’s exactly what’s happening between the governor and the judicial branch right now.
On Jan. 11, a three-judge panel found that the Kansas Legislature (largely following Brownback’s recommendations) had not been providing a suitable education, as is the Constitutional requirement. In order to “suitably” fund K-12 education, the governor would need to add more than $400 million to the budget. Every year.
So Brownback lashed out. In his State of the State address on Jan. 15, Brownback levied harsh words at the way judges are selected, because if you can’t change the ruling, then change the court itself.
Currently, a commission made up of a majority of Bar Association members presents a list of three most qualified applicants to the governor, who then chooses from the list. Brownback wants to select the judges directly, claiming the Bar Association is a special interest group. It could be, perhaps, but it was crafted as a defense against politics determining judicial selection.
But Brownback wants to directly select judges, specifically those that agree with him. The Senate has already passed Brownback’s plan. The Bar Association has even offered to give up its majority in the nomination process, to little avail.
Furthermore, Brownback has called for mediation in the school finance case. He wants the court to appoint someone to negotiate with the schools so he doesn’t lose as badly as the court has decided. In essence, he wants to avoid the consequences of the court’s decision by debating the terms of his loss.
When someone says no to Brownback, he has found a way to crush them. The judicial branch is the last group with any power to say no, so he’s started the process to change the court and change the ruling.
When someone who gets everything they want hears no, they can do two things: either accept the obstacle and find something else, or continue on in spite of opposition. The governor is doing all he can to continue on in spite of judicial opposition. We’ll soon find out if this is another hurdle he can overcome or the first group who has the power to stop him.
— For the Morning Sun
