Jackson Jambalaya

Legal Argument from Hood is strange. How is it a fundamental due process right of the public to get notice when the gov can do anything he or she wants to pardon the convict? Also, if a prisoner doesn't know he will get a pardon because he doen't have to apply, how is he supposed to know to get the pardon published? And, there is no way a dead guy can get something published if the gov wants to pardon him posthumously.

I agree with Hood's apparent position, however, that the previous gov is a scumbag for leaving the mess for all of us to clean up while he and Marsha sit on the beach in Florida with a freshly iced cocktail in hand.

Agreeing with Jim Hood. I think I just pulled every ethical muscle in my body.

I thought Jim Hood looked and sounded like he was lost. He's not a good lawyer, and his appearance today showed it. The previous gov like all those before him has the authority to pardon, and like it or not, he used it. It's a done deal.

1:51 Agreed.

Even if the convict posts a notice in the local paper for 30 days, what is the purpose? Will some victim see the notice and agitate to have the pardon cancelled? Is there a mechanism for that enumerated in the state constitution? I don't think so, and it seems an absolute right of the governor that is not subject to oversight by any other branch of government. I agree Haley made some horrible choices and did an even worse job explaining them (hell, he didn't even try explaining them at first), but they were his choices to make.

From a legal standpoint of how the law is actually written, if the power to pardon is absolute why are there conditions attached?

3:18, I think the pardon power cannot be described as "absolute" (in the legal sense), as there is that condition attached to it. However, if the applicant fails to meet the condition, and the Governor pardoms him anyway, then no other branch of government can overturn his decision.

Bottom line seems to be that there is the condition of publication prior to granting a pardon. But if that condition is not met and the pardon is granted anyway, then there is no remedy that would allow the pardon to be un-done. Separation of powers, rather than the text of Section 124, mandates this result.

At least that's how I see it. Maybe someone else can give Twitty's position on this issue.

The Court brought up a rather interesting issue. The constitution requires that the *applicant* publish notice of his application for pardon in the newspaper prior to the pardon being granted.

Only one problem: Apparently NONE of the mansion trustys applied for a pardon. The Governor granted those pardons without the trustys applying for them.

Question: How does someone who did not apply for a pardon publish notice that he has applied for a pardon?

Would the publication requirement not be an impossible requirement to meet under these circumstances?

Kudos to Tom Fortner and Charles Griffen.

Jim Hood needs to go back to law school. He also needs to learn how to answer questions. What a dud he is.

I liked when Hood was asked why he was so strict on the 30 days, but didn't challenge pardons which published but didn't follow the Constitution on what they said. He said sometimes papers don't publish it as requested.

The justice said that was AG's determination. He was asking the Court to trust his determination, but saying they could not trust the governor's determination.

He was asking the court to be strict on one part of the constitution but lax on another part.

some people are allowing their opinion of Hood to color their opinions on this legal issue.

Hood's argument may be right or wrong, I'm pretty torn on this issue myself, but this oral argument is just a dog and pony show for the public. These judges will huddle up and consider not only the law, but the political effects it will have on THEM as elected judges.

When the "executive order" vs. "pardon" issue was touched on, it sounded like that Justice desparately wants a way out of making the decision with the reference to executive orders being subject to revocation by the governor or his successor...

I am anon at 4:37, should have said, maybe wants to punt the ball to Gov. Phil.

Pardons go back to the right of Kings. Even Kings , in time, heard objections sides when someone sought the King's pardon EVEN when all crimes were considered " crimes against the King".

The 30 days is to give notice to those who may have something of relevance to tell "the King" so "the King" may be just.

Historically, Governors have, with few exceptions, used this power wisely as they understood they were neither Kings nor tyrants.

That the right to pardon was called " a sacred right" in court is more than a bit unnerving to me. I , like my ancestors before me, do not believe in " the divine right of Kings". I do not think any governor is divinely empowered to do anything but derives his power from the people. Therefore NO power he or she enjoys is " sacred".

The King if a fink.

LONG LIVE CONWAY TWITTY!!! hello darlin....

I've not heard or seen near the negative personal opinion of Hood as I've heard and seen directed at Barbour, his politics and behavior. How can anyone (4:37, for example) conclude that the public comment is being unfair to Hood? ("some people are allowing their opinion of Hood to color their opinions on this legal issue.")

It's a shame Hood is not black so all the democrats and Hood supporters could cry racism.

@12:51 Haley and Marsha don't drink do they? I thought they were Baptists...

Thanks for the response DVDJ but I'm still not sure I understand it. If any pardon he makes is irrevocable why even bother to put the conditions on it to begin with if they basically don't mean anything?

Shadowfax makes a great point (though he screwed it up with the final sentence).

Haley Barbour has caught unmitigated hell, while Twitty and his grandstanding have been given a free pass. Our sorry media sits on the edge of its seat at his language-mangling press conferences just salivating for the next Billy Joe Badazz soundbite.

They print whatever he says with no fact checking or even basic follow up questions (example: the "manhunt" farce). The worst has been Jessica Bakeman at the C-L. Her stories read like she just copied Twitty's press release and called it news.

I'm of the opinion that the lawsuit brought by the AG will fail. I'm also of the opinion that the SC got it right to warn, this is not a political witch hunt; the rule of law will apply - equally.

That said, I was impressed most with the SC. They asked very good questions and seemed to know in advance what the gamesmanship was leading into this.

While the defense is trying to keep up with the many objections the AG has with the constitutionality of the pardons, the AG was left to explain. I did not hear a complete logical argument leading to the invalidation of the pardons. I did not even hear it in part.

My hat is off to the SC and the defense for their performance.

It's good to be the King!

February 9, 2012 6:19 PM

You just made an argument for appointment over election of justices.

It is true oral argument rarely matters as much as lawyers like to think. They just like being on stage.

But what I heard was the Court pressing Hood to explain how his case fits with precedents. And his answer was, it doesn't, so overrule them. That is a last- resort argument.

Tomorrow if time allows I will post an explanation of the case law in question for the benefit of curious nonlawyers.

Good luck with that, Anderson. I try not to argue law with nonlawyers after a particularly excruciating disagreement over whether truth is a complete defense to libel. He still thinks he won. Jane

Post the link brother!

I ,um,want to ,um,thank the ,um court, um for the,um oport,um tunity, um to um advance, um the ,um notion, um that, um, a , um applicant, um has to um publish, um 30 um days,um to um the , um contstituion,um says,so um because, um, the people, um made it um , um a um condition, um precedent um to the um ability ,um of the um governor um to um pardon,

If he is not concerned with the petition, nor the summation by a paper, but satisfied by a notice, what if they published "a litter of cats for free." It is notice, so, wouldn't that be notice under the argument. Also, if the newspapers have free reign to notice in their own manner, isn't the publication of the paper notice enough?

I really wanted someone to go into the math and the problem of the seven day week and notice in a publication. I mean, what if, the newspaper is a bi-weekly publication. What then? Would that then require only two and a half publications? What if it was a monthly publication, would we have to take an average of published days in between publications? Where does the insanity end?

With that,hopefully.

Made you read. Finally. Harrumph.

Nothing to add shintflint?

Here you go, Kaptain -- tho I fully bear in mind Jane's wise comment.

I'm admittedly not a lawyer. But, I have been interested in the law from a sociological perspective.
Therefore , the purpose of law to me ,very generally put, is to seek justice , put into place understood rules of conduct and limits of power so that a society can be civilized rather that in a state of chaos.
People forget that when Shakespeare wrote " first kill all the lawyers", his characters were plotting anarchy.
I would suggest to Jane that if you cannot explain the law to a non-lawyer, the problem is with either you or the law . The law cannot be followed if it cannot be explained.
I would suggest that lawyers be concerned that by having judges who are not competent in the law, having legislators who were lawyers intent on making laws to further their self interests rather than that of society's, we are in a sorry state.
When a Governor no longer understands that pardons have a purpose that is not about HIS power but about righting wrongs and furthering justice, when defense lawyers can shift blame to others without one whit of evidence but with concocted stories in defense of their client so that " reasonable doubt" has lost the basis of "reason", when our Supreme Court rules that a corporation is an individual, something is wrong. That something is NOT the ordinary citizen , it's that those caught up in games of power have lost sight of the big picture. And, sadly, the big picture is keeping our democratic republic from falling into chaos .
There has always been " the ought to be law" and the " is" law, Jane, but the legal profession has lost sight of the fact that the law should evolve in the direction of " the ought to be"...to become more fair and just with more clarity, not less so.
Unfortunately, honor is in short supply these days. When we had those who suffered injustice at the hands of Kings or who personally saw injustice in wars against tyrants, they seemed better equipped to move the law forward as they were painfully aware of the purpose of law.

The problem with trying to explain this case to non-lawyers is that the bottom line here is who gets to decide whether Sect. 124's requirements are met: the governor or the judiciary. The caselaw regarding a similar requirement for legislative actions on tax bills indicates that the judiciary does not have the power to decide whether Sect. 124's publication requirements have been met. But the nonlawyer will keep arguing "but Sect. 124 says 'shall.'"

Jane

There has always been " the ought to be law" and the " is" law, Jane, but the legal profession has lost sight of the fact that the law should evolve in the direction of " the ought to be"...to become more fair and just with more clarity ...

LORD have mercy on the Obama voters.

But the nonlawyer will keep arguing "but Sect. 124 says 'shall.'"

I try to explain that at my linked post, so if anyone actually wants to see how a lawyer looks at "shall," they can take a look.

Hint: it involves looking at "cases."

Favorite legal anecdote: the new associate is assigned to write a memo explaining the meaning of a certain statute. He comes in later that day with a copy of a statute and his two-page memo intepreting it.

The partner says, "Great. Now, go find me the cases that tell me what the statute means."

Same goes for constitutions. They don't just sit there and "mean" by themselves. Someone has to read them. And the readings that count most are the ones performed by previous courts.

If that sounds bad to you, consider the alternative: any court, any time, can decide that the law means what that court thinks it means, and to hell with any line of precedent to the contrary. Whatever you could call such an alternative, "conservative" it is not.

I hate it when you have to figure out the meaning of a statute that HASN'T already been interpreted by the courts. I feel like I might as well be reading another language. In fact, when I'm looking for a statute on a topic, I usually run a search through the caselaw first because the statute, if it exists, won't contain a single word that I think it ought to contain.
Jane

Jane,

I'm not going to get into a match of sorts, but "non-lawyers" are sufficiently educated enough to understand the separation of powers and the fundamental issue of whether or not the Judiciary has the power to disturb a decision by the Executive branch.

Additionally, it is not too much of a leap to conclude most understand case law "colors" the strict language of the constitution.

With that said, I also understand overturning the historical direction of the separation of powers would be very "revolutionary" as it would contradict the interpretation that has stood for over a hundred years.

8:37 said: "I would suggest to Jane that if you cannot explain the law to a non-lawyer, the problem is with either you or the law . "

You are ignoring the VERY likely possibility that some people are too dumb to be educated no matter how much you try to simplify the language and "dumb down" the concepts.

Sorry. I did not mean to be condescending. I was thinking of a specific person on NMC's site.

Jane

I was just making sure I stayed on your *good* side!

"The worst has been Jessica Bakeman at the C-L. Her stories read like she just copied Twitty's press release and called it news." All local media sucked. Some are finally starting to understand that maybe actually looking into the issue is part of what a reporter is suppose to do. A close 2nd, or possibly taking over in first place is Fox40 in the morning. I gave up, don't watch them anymore. If news broadcast, paper or tv, becomes personal commentary then there's no point looking to that entity for actual news.

@8:37am-Bless Your Heart, we see you're back.

Bakeman's reporting has been worse than the fevered boosterism of the Hoodcult @ the Bugle? I don't think so.

But the nonlawyer will keep arguing "but Sect. 124 says 'shall.'"

that sounds like the only drum that AG Hood is sounding

The Bugle is Hood's poodle.

I know lawyers are arrogant; however,I was unaware so many think the rest of us are not sufficiently educated to understand legal concepts and simple explanations. This sort of rings a bell, though, doesn't it...with the current oligarchy in D.C. where we hear "we will tell you what you need to know and will make for you the many decisions you are incapable of making for yourself".

Every lawyer in America was once a mere member of the bourgeoisie who ate cake.

however,I was unaware so many think the rest of us are not sufficiently educated to understand legal concepts and simple explanations

SF, the problem with the law is that people act like it's not actually an area of expertise, whereas in fact it is. People don't (usually) assume they have an intuitive grasp of classical physics or how to design a suspension bridge, but everyone thinks he knows what the law is ... or what it should be!

As usual, the Onion had the classic statement on the subject: Area Man Passionate Defender of What He Imagines Constitution to Be.

Very well put shadowfax... Can't believe I just said that... Anderson if we can't understand the law and stupid is not a defense then what are we left with... I'll tell you, a since of entitlement from the judicial branch and a childish game of "no I am right" from the lawyers.

Jane et. al, less not pretend here that lawyers don't submit briefs with caselaw supporting opposing positions. Let's not pretend that " precedent" has never changed or constitutional language been interpreted or reinterpreted.

I've no idea whether the case you cite is applicable or not. I suspect the SC may be arguing that among themselves as I write . If this is as " cut and dry" as some of you apparently believe,we'll get a quick decision, won't we?

It's not this case argument on this blog I find objectionable, but the incredible arrogance from some of the blogging lawyers...especially since I respect the law and a great many in the profession.

None of you came out of your mother's womb with a Black Law dictionary in your little fists. Someone explained the law to YOU in plain English. And, Anderson, someone who isn't hiding behind professional jargon can explain a suspension bridge and physics as well. We aren't discussing the entire body of the law here, just one aspect. Jargon is a place for the incompetent to hide in ANY profession.

Not all lawyers are " equal" when it comes to reading comprehension, writing skills or the ability to succinctly and cogently present a case. Some legal briefs filed in this State are an embarrassment to not just the legal profession, but whoever taught the lawyer English!

Are any of you lawyers going to tell me you never won a case you should have lost or lost a case you should have won based on legal arguments? Or that you've just plain been wrong?

Some citizens may be too dumb to get in out of the rain without drowning,but I doubt Jane or any of you other lawyers are "arguing" the law with such people unless they are your clients or on a jury.

And, frankly, since some of us non-lawyers even know that the legal profession is rated and know who has and hasn't been recognized professionally for their legal abilities in Mississippi. We even know that many Mississippi lawyers never had to pass a State Bar exam. So we aren't so easily impressed just because you say you graduated from a law school and have a license to practice.

We especially aren't impressed after hearing nationally and internationally recognized lawyers say repeatedly that their associates with a " future" don't get so mired in the details of a case that they can't see the larger picture! And, guess what ,the most successful lawyers in this country can discuss the law without resorting to jargon or getting defensive. Indeed, they take pride in being able to do just that!

By the way, Jane, you do KNOW don't you that when it comes to constitutional law, it's not just case law that is relevant, right? The intent of the framers of the language can get cited as well. Probably didn't happen here as we didn't have the best and brightest researching and arguing and it might have required going to archives rather than doing an Internet search, but...

And, by the way, I didn't vote for Obama...what a poor excuse for an argument THAT is. I hope to hell 9:18am isn't a lawyer! Does he still think he can lock up his wife or beat his children and animals senseless because a couple of hundred years ago, he legally could? Do women have the right to VOTE now? What the IS law was became the " OUGHT TO BE" law and thus the new IS...get it now? THINK THINK

*** YAWN ***

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz

"And, Anderson, someone who isn't hiding behind professional jargon can explain a suspension bridge and physics as well. "

Which is why I wrote a post on my blog, linked above, that explains the main legal issue on the pardons, for the benefit of non-lawyers.

Otherwise, concur w Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz ....

AHHHHHH the "THESIS POST" been a while since ive seen one.

Can someone fluent in BS please interpret the post at 10:03?

Anderson that's certainly why you relied on " indefeasible" instead of saying cannot be made void.

I get the argument that the separation of powers means neither the legislative or judicial branch can revoke a power constitutionally given to the executive branch.

I simply think when one reads the entire 1890 Constitution , as laborious and often incoherent as it is ( ZZZZZ, yawn for some of slow readers above who might miss out on the so badly written as to be embarrassing sections dealing with the railroad ), the case you cited had to arguably do with overlapping authorities granted, not with a constitutional requirement limiting a governor's authority to exercise power.

I'm not persuaded the two words " no such" has the necessary " similarity" but such an argument could politically get the SC off the hook and they'll probably grab it like a life preserver since they are elected. And, I am aware of cases that hung on one word.

But, I do agree, Hood made poor oral arguments. I haven't read the written arguments , have you?

Do you fall asleep reading discovery documents?

February 12, 2012 12:43 AM, with an expertise as deep as your own you really should be posting over at the Bugle.

You could collaborate with that belle from Natchez and help the Bugle tremendously with their coverage on these pardons.

Are " the lawyers" saying that unlike other states which have limited the power to grant pardons, Mississippi's Constitution prevents ANY limitations?

So, a Governor of Mississippi can sell pardons, pardon the entire prison population if he wants, pardon any and all members of his staff or family who commit crimes while he's in office and there's not a thing the public can do?

And, if any of those pardoned kill someone else, there is no liability because of sovereign immunity , is that right?

Sounds to me that a Pardon admendment to the State Constitution may be what is needed. Would THAT do it?

Wow, Sorry I emailed. *Good*

2:55pm, in response to your questions:

1. As written, the constitution places no reviewable limitations on the governor's pardon power.

2. The governor cannot sell pardons, as this would constitute bribery and extortion. Even if he did I don't know if the pardon could be undone. He could be prosecuted criminally though.

3. Yes the governor could pardon the entire prison population.

4. Yes the governor can pardon his friends, staff and friends of friends and staff.

5. Yes the governor is immune from liability.

6. If the people do not want the governor to have these powers, then yes, amending the constitution is the remedy.

That's how I see the issues. Perhaps someone from Team Twitty can give you the opposing viewpoint.

Unlike some I am just looking at the safety of law abiding citizens when a pompous and arrogant Governor outrageously releases hardened criminals and murderers into the populace. I am also thinking of the families of the victims, as well as the victims who are still living and not dead, who went through the trials when these dangerous and heartless criminals were found guilty and incarcerated. In my view they should have served their time just like all the other inmates are, and the families and victims should feel safe. As a citizen of this state I am outraged at what Haley Barbour did, and whether he is liked or disliked, I am grateful and happy that Jim Hood has challenged this act on the part of someone who had NO compassion for the victims and who freed the perpetrators. I am personally praying the verdict will be for the Attorney General, and that these murderers and abusers will be returned to prison. If not, the families, the victims and all citizens had better watch their backs.