There is a new reason to wonder whether a Kansas House panel’s inquiry will shed any light on the already acknowledged contact between a state Supreme Court justice and two state senators: The senators, Senate President Steve Morris (in photo), R-Hugoton, and Sen. Pete Brungardt, R-Salina, have rightly resisted testifying before the committee, on the constitutional principle that lawmakers are not required to answer for their “speech and debate.” Given that, it seems unlikely that they would be any more willing to give sworn depositions — one idea suggested by Rep. Mike O’Neal, R-Hutchinson, the panel’s chairman. Still, Republican Sens. Terry Bruce of Hutchinson, Jim Barnett of Emporia, Pat Apple of Louisburg and Susan Wagle of Wichita are all scheduled to testify Thursday. Shouldn’t these senators also be uneasy about submitting to the other chamber’s probe?
Meanwhile, The Hutchinson News noted that each of the 10 members on the House committee will get round-trip mileage reimbursements, a salary of $83 a day and expenses of $99 a day.
And the fact that this dubious inquiry has barely begun didn’t deter the conservative Kansas Judicial Watch from calling for the resignations or impeachment of all members of the Kansas Supreme Court; it cited Justice Lawton Nuss’ filing last week indicating that he and other justices received a copy of the legislative cost study and other information not part of the legal record for the school finance case.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
13 Comments
OK, so NOW, the mileage is too expensive for the state (no worries about the ridiculous $500 million plan). Pathetic.
Pathetic is the constant attack on the judiciary by the republicans.
Those damn courts are the only thing standing between them and theocracy, and they aint gonna quit attacking judges until every last one of them is beaten into submission.
Then the glorious republican, conservative, christian jihad on american can REALLY begin.
We dont need no stinkin’ laws… or the judges who enforce them. We have GOD on our side.
Not had your coffee yet KFG? :-)
Not had your kookaide yet joe?
The court violates the law and some of you seem to think that is ok. If you can’t trust the court to do what they are suppose to do which is to apply decisions based on law and the constitution then there is no reason to have a court. For those of you that think politics have not been playing a part in this court/education debate I have some swamp land I would like to sell you.
I don’t care what party you are with this should be a concern of everyone’s. If the court is corrupt then they cannot do their job. I don’t know if they are or not but things should be looked into. Judge Nuss defiantly has a problem because any first year law student knows that you do not talk about a pending case outside of the court and you do not have discussions on information that has not been presented to the court as evidence. So yes he should be investigated. Even his own comments in response to the court show that he is looking at information not presented to the court and he is using the media reports as well. This is a clear violation. I hope that the court does their job properly and punishes him accordingly.
As for the Senators that engaged in a conversation with the judge they should be willing to clear the air if they truly feel they have not violated any laws. Instead two of them have hired and attorney that just happens to be a Senator (John Vratil) who just happens to represent school districts in his practice. See the web here? What are they all hiding from?
Nuss: Entire Court Violated Canon 3AnalysisA closer reading of Nuss’ response to the Commission on Judicial Qualifications reveals an ethical lapse by the entire Kansas Supreme Court.In Nuss’ filing with the court, on page two there is the following sentence:”Justice Nuss’s monitoring of this House Bill was consistent with the Court staff’s practice of providing regular written reports to the Court regarding proposed school funding bills during the 2005 legislative session.”These reports prepared by the court staff were not part of the record of the case, not entered by the litigants and not disclosed to the litigants until this filing.These reports are also potential violation of Canon 3(B)(7) of the rules relating to Judicial conduct.In the commentary section of 3(B)(7) it says:”A judge must not independently investigate facts in a case and must consider only the evidence presented.”The staff reports were of evidence independently gathered, were used by the Justices, but were not part of the record and evidence presented in the case.Nuss further indicts the court with this passage:”…a legislative post audit study which had been provided each Justice in January, 2006, but which was not in the record on appeal.”The LPA report, though a valid piece of information which would be entered into the record once arguments resumed, was not in evidence and should not have been reviewed by the Justices.The disturbing practice of the court having its staff compile reports on legislation from media reports, legislative research reports, legislative committee reports and bill packets in the course of an ongoing case is an indication the entire court has willingly tainted the legal proceedings in Montoy.With Nuss’ admission, it appears the entire court has been willing to violate Canon 3(B)(7).
“Nuss: Entire Court Violated Canon 3Analysis”
Wanna cite a source for that ruby? I mean, it wouldnt be from a conservative republican, anti-public education source…
…would it?
And did I mention that all these senators that met with the bad bad justice were republicans? That makes it a bi-partisan issue?
culture of corruption
jihad on public education
just keep spinning ruby. this story isnt getting any traction, now is it?
four.more.years.
KFG, which is it? Four more years? Or No Incumbents?No wonder you’re part of the, “I voted for the war before I voted against it” party.
BLow?
Wouldn’t that make your party the “I send other people to die in wars that I cannnot fund without massive deficits because I am busy giving tax breaks to the obscenely wealthy ” party?
Back under your bridge!
What makes you think four more years is a happy thing for me?
It is a reality. Nice job wingnuts. You are turning the state over to governor leadership for another four years. But she is still better than the pathetic nut job republicans running.
After all, SHE is the best republican governor we have had in a very long time.
My new slogan? NO WINGNUTS!!!!!
Does that suit ya better joe?
Joe – knowing kfg it was rather obvious that her “four.more.years” was despair, not cheering.
Remember this is about a Rep. Judge talking to Rep. Senators, being investegated by a Rep. House, chaired by a Rep. House member. How in the world does this make it a bi-partisan problem?
The House can’t do anything to a Senate member and no House members are involved. What a waste of time and money!
KSFG, The source was Canon Law that the judges are to abide by. You can look up Canon Law on the internet
It is not an issue of Republican or Democrat it is about what is right. You apparently cannot get over your obvious bias of other parties. I can. If a Republican commits a crime then action should be taken. The same should hold for a Democrat.
The Supreme Court is not supposed to be about politics. It should make no difference what Governor picked them or what party they are. There is a code of ethics for judges for judges to follow.
You are caught in such a little world. You might be amazed what is really out there if you truly explored it and talked to some of the folks you are so quick to call names. You might find that some of them are nothing like you think they are.
Ruby – I don’t think the question was about the source or existence of canon law but rather whether or not it was violated and just whose interpretation of the events and law we are reading above.