Comments on: Unanimous Decision by State Supreme Court

By: Rep. Craig Frank

Rep. Craig Frank — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 04:38:27 +0000

Ouch!

By: Deisman

Deisman — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 16:33:47 +0000

I love how the great representative immediately runs to the tried and true neocon fall back position of “legislating from the bench” when he feels the sting of justice. Well if Rep. Frank and his neocon colleagues would have been stand-up leaders and offered to reconvene to clear up the mess they made he would not be crying in his postum. I especially love the divine comity of all this especially since the original intent of the second bill was to strip the rights away the rights of all Utah citizens from using a referendum. Sorry Rep. Frank, the cowboys in the white hats won this round.

By: Yer Mamma

Yer Mamma — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 03:40:02 +0000

JM Bell is sad and predictable.

By: Davis DIdjeridu

Davis DIdjeridu — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 00:31:30 +0000

Sour Grapes Craig! How was a UNANIMOUS decision by four of the present justices a “hybrid”? If it was 4-1 or 3-2, would that make it less legal or applicable? They are the SUPREME Court; they are the people ultimately responsible, not Shurtleff, for ruling on equal justice under the law. I am not a lawyer, and I have not seen the opinion, but as a citizen, I feel good that the rights of citizens are equal to a group of bought-and-paid-for legislators like yourself.

By: JM Bell

JM Bell — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 00:15:27 +0000

It’s the loudest cry of a legislature told, again, that it’s operating in an unconstitutional manner. They’re a co-equal branch, but you guys get bent every time you step out of line and get called on it.

It is sad and it is predictable.

By: Voice of Utah

Voice of Utah — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 23:12:49 +0000

I knew it–if the Court ruled “for” voucher proponents, it would be doing its job; if it interpreted the statute otherwise, it is “judicial legislation.” Predictable.

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 22:31:50 +0000

I agree with Jesse. The obvious intent of legislators in HB 174 was not to create a stand-alone program, but rather to amend certain parts of the already passed bill. By not being willing to go back into a special session and then taking the issue to court voucher proponents forced their hand. Don’t complain just because the decision wasn’t what you’d hoped it would be.

My feeling is the Legislature enjoys interpreting law, a Constitutional duty, last time I checked, assigned to the Legislature.

By: Jesse Harris

Jesse Harris — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 21:51:29 +0000

I’m a voucher supporter and I think you’re off-base. The legislative intent of HB 174 was to amend HB 148. From reading the ruling itself, it’s obvious that the court simply stated the obvious for us and that this bill was never meant to stand on its own. The same thing is done when determining “original intent” in regards to Constitutional questions.

I think every voucher supporter needs to back off on trying to force implementation of HB 174 and work instead on getting a sufficient vote in November. This nasty fighting is leaving a bad taste in too many mouths.