FYI: Richard Nadler, president of America’s Majority, blasts the Kansas Supreme Court’s school finance ruling in a commentary in National Review Online. Some of his criticisms:
"Judges, legislatures and school have coexisted for a century and a half in the Sunflower State without it entering the heads of judges to replace the role of the legislatures in appropriating for the schools."
"It was a persistent dream of socialist thinkers of the 20th century to replace the noisy, class-influenced machinery of democracy with a professional corps of experts who would design economic and social institutions in the interests of the people. In Montoy, the Kansas supremes set their hands to it."
"The court adopted a single study by a single committee of the Legislature. The justices treated its proposals as law, and rammed them down the throats of all concerned."
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
12 Comments
One of the key things that has let the courts change the intent of laws is the ambiguous nature of some of the laws. The term ‘adequate’ in the education funding comes to mind. How can you define adequate?
One striking aspect of this kind of argument is this. The NRO and other modern conservatives argue that the court used an outdated study as the instruction booklet for providing an adequate education for the students of Kansas, and that this constitutes strong evidence that the old socialist chestnut of a “professional corps mustered out of elitists” still holds its live germ. At the same time, though, there is no balancing counterview. Namely, that the court used the old study because it was the only study.
Why did our legislature commission a funding study only to ignore it? Why did they not dig in, do the hard work and chase its conclusions down? Why let it stand as the single source of objective evidence?
In other words, it’s less that a professional corps exists to govern than it is that those who read seriously the laws passed by this very body used the only objective standard available made available to them.
These new conservatives, sheesh. From Washington to Topeka, it’s like they’re just not ready for governing in prime time. Winning elections in prime time, yeah, but governing?
Plus, the KSC is filled with Kansanas, and we’re a brand of folk not exactly known for our socialist leanings. By accusing the KSC of being socialistic reveals far more about the NRO than it does the court.
What Flike said!
I’ve never seen anything else by this Nadler dude, but judging by this article, he’s an idiot.
It is the JOB of the court to say what the law IS. It is the JOB of the court, when a case is brought before it, to decide whether that case has merit, and if so, to decide, based on the evidence presented, who is right and who is wrong.
If the court had refused to hear the school finance case, it would not have been doing its JOB. And if the court had relied on anything other than the “evidence in the record” in making its decision, then that WOULD have been judicial activism.
But for the court to properly hear a case that was properly presented to it; for the court to consider the available evidence and reach a decision — that is just a COURT doing what a COURT is SUPPOSED to DO.
Way to go, Alden! excellent points all.(see you at work, heh, heh)
Phillip,
It’s typical of lawyers to view justice as merely the processing of the law, rather than the higher meaning of justice – the making of an impartial assessment of conflicting claims by means of supportable facts and informed reason.
It is also appalling how much our court system uses obfuscation of fact as a primary mode of operation, turning justice into a “gotcha” game of legal finagling, whether in terms of admission of evidence or use of evidence.
Equally appalling is that the legislature hired Augenblick & Assoc. (an undistinguished consulting group with a long history of sucking up to school administrators) in the first place and then never had the sense to repudiate Augenblick’s unsupported and entirely illogical recommendations.
In this case, however, the justices are no better than the legislature. They, too, should have thrown out the Augenblick report as merely the thinly disguised opinions of school administrators.
Apparently, no one has actually read the Augenblick report, except Ken Daniel. See:http://www.kssmallbiz.com/articles/article_234.asp
I am unaware of any factual analysis that supports the Augenblick report.
If the legislature and justices had done their job, the Augenblick report would never have been offered as relevant information, nor taken by the court as a useful, professional, or honest analysis.
The court may have “done its job,” but only in the sense of having processed the case. Had the justices actually read the report with understanding and without bias, they would have discounted it completely. The court did not do what an unbiased and intelligent COURT is SUPPOSED to DO.
“I’ve never seen anything else by this Nadler dude, but judging by this article, he’s an idiot.” Great way to start a rebuttal, Alden.I would suggest reading his article at:http://www.nationalreview.com/01jun98/nadler060198.htmlThe original Augenblick report was seriously flawed. If that is what we can count on from the Kansas Supreme Court to base its’ decisions on, we got a serious problem. I guess the fact that school spending outspent consumer increases by 29% means nothing.The bottom line, in my opinion, is not how much is spent per student, but HOW it’s spent. Public schools are run by the government, and as I’ve said many times, governments don’t have a clue how to spend wisely.So closing the schools because not enough money has been allocated by the legislature hurts every parent, student and teacher in the state, and accomplishes nada.You want idiot? Look no further than your own KSC.
Seems to me that you either want an activist court or not. Most federalists I know, including those I read at NRO, vastly prefer courts with judges who interpret the law strictly and without making law.
Bottom line: if you think the NRO and other neo-federalists are correct in philosophy, then it seems to me that you have to agree that appropriations is solely a legislative and never a judicial responsibility. Therefore, if a tort is brought before the court accusing the legislative branch of abbrograting that responsibility, then a neo-federalist’s intregity would seem to insist the courts use only that evidence provided it and to never judge said tort using merely its own opinion of “what’s the correct amount” or “those poor legislators obviously – obviously! – solicited the data provided by the study only to ignore it.”
Unless, of course, the only principle that REALLY matters is “never pay taxes if at all possible.”
Sheesh, modern conservatives. You don’t get what you want, you bitch. You get what you want, you bitch anyway. If you’re really looking for idiots here, the search never has to leave the capitol building in Topeka.
I am assuming that you are painting me as a “modern conservative”? Not even close. Kansas is so screwed up because of ignorant decisions made by it’s leaders, who were voted in by the majority of the people. I’m happy to say that I voted for none of the people holding office in the state.You want to do the reight thing? Get involved. Blogs such as this help people do so.
flike, if the justices followed the evidence provided, why didn’t they use the amount recommended in the report? In that regard, the justices can be said to have ignored the report, too. In fact, they took on the legislative function of deciding how much was right – all by themselves. Therefore, your argument fails.
Tricia, I don’t think the standard for “using only the leg’s evidence shows the KSC is a federalist court” is that it has to match the report to the penny.
The point is that the KSC used the only evidence provided it as a starting point. That the legislature chose to ignore its own study – rather than disprove or knock down its conclusions – is no more evidence of intelligent governance than it is of judicial activism.
However, I understand the modern conservative idea that, if the facts jar your frame of mind, by all means feel free to change the facts. Carry on!
The Kansas Supreme Court only became involved when a lawsuit arose and made its way to the top because of the inability of people to agree. The Kansas Supreme Court did not ask for this case. PS I am a Republican