Chris Koster took $1275 from Aquila back in October for his campaign for Attorney General. No wonder he’s OK with the Aquila plant now. He’s working for them and not his constituents.

http://www.moethics.mo.gov/Ethics/CampaignFinance/CF_SearchResults.aspx?Year=2008&Report=0&Type=0&CD1Type=All&CD3Type=All&Name=aquila&City=&EmpOcc=&AmtBeg=&AmtEnd=&MECID=&ComName=

Kudos to Senator Bray for realizing that Aquila made its own bed on this, and it’s not the legislature’s job to bail them out or to usurp the authority of the judicial branch that has already spoken.

I second Penelope. It is absolutely ridiculous that a company such as Aquila can ignore the law and as long as they lobby the right legislators and donate enough money everything will be made ok.

No, Ms. Ridgeway, Aquila doesn’t get top stick consumers for the costs of the plant if its torn down. Missouri law doesn’t allow for inclusion of construction work in progress (CWIP) in the ratebase. If the plant wasn’t approved, the PSC can’t put it in the ratebase.

The new legislation is special legislation which is banned under the Missouri Constitution. I see a declaratory judgment action being filed as soon as the ink is dry on this consumer boondoggle, and more money for lawyers because of silly legislation passed by the give-away-the-store-to-utilities legislature in Jefferson City.

Kudos to Joan Bray, my State Senator, for again having the integrity to stand up to the special interests!

Penelope and Bt…

I think you may be confused when it comes to the difference between legislation and usurpation.

It is not usurpation for the legislature to create or repeal law; even if doing so makes something that was considered to be unlawful, no longer unlawful.

Say a law that was created had the inadvertent effect of instituting a mandatory 5 year prison term for wearing two left shoes. I know, it sounds ridiculous; but some laws do have that kind of effect.

A judge would have no option, but to sentence an offender to 5 years in prison. (even if the judge agreed that the law is ridiculous)

The legislature is the only branch of government that has the authority to fix it. That’s why we permit them to create laws that have the retroactive effect of relieving an unjust burden.

Judge Curless did a great disservice to the citizens of this state by sending out that e-mail. By using the powerful influence of his position, he created confusion among the citizens. He decided to declare what a legislators job is, instead of looking to the Missouri Constitution. There is no such thing as an activist legislator. To the contrary, it is the job of a legislator to be an activist.

I agree with you about the influence of lobbyist and PAC donations. But remember; no legislator can do anything on their own. It takes a minimum of 98 others, and 1 Governor before any Bill can become law.

We have attorneys that serve in the legislature. Some of them have much more experience than the judges do. We currently have more than 300 years of combined legal expertise in the Missouri General Assembly.

Just because a judge says something about the law, that doesn’t mean that he or she is correct. If it did, we wouldn’t need appellate courts. Even the District Appellate Courts get it wrong, that’s why we have the Missouri Supreme Court.

If you look at the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, you will see that only the Constitution and the laws and treaties created in pursuance thereof are the Supreme Law of the Land. Document outweighs doctrine. The power of the citizens, through their elected representatives, is intended to control the judiciary. It’s only the myth of equality among the branches that causes confusion. If you take the time to read Federalist #78, you will see that the framers intended the Judicial to be the weakest branch.

I’m not sure if the Bill affecting Aquila is a good law or not; only time will tell. I do know this; the Legislature did not violate the Missouri Constitution or the Statutes of Missouri. I can’t say the same about the judge who used the power of his position.

Tim Hogan…

Doesn’t the Missouri Constitution permit the Legislature to create laws that would repeal special local laws?

Article III, Section 41

Indirect enactment of local and special laws–repeal of local and special laws.

The general assembly shall not indirectly enact a special or local law by the partial repeal of a general law; but laws repealing local or special acts may be passed.

Wouldn’t HB2279 have the effect of repealing the local act; thereby making it constitutional?

Please identify the Article and Section of the Missouri Constitution that you are referring to.

Mr. Byrne: I promise not to confuse legislation with usurpation (and I haven’t here) if you will promise to use your keen powers of discernment to figure out the difference between usurpation and adjudication. One of the benefits of having judges decide controversies - and make no mistake, this is a matter that began as a controversy between citizens of this state and a politically and financially powerful utility company - is that they are less likely to be resolved based on who donated the most money to the Bartle and Koster campaign funds. Does this make the aggrieved citizens of Cass County’s claims any less meritorious? I think not, and neither did the Judge.

Jim… I agree with your position based on the premise of a law which is truly bad and needs to be revised. That said, bad law or not, a person or a business is still required to follow the law! We don’t get to follow only the laws that we think are fair and ignore the others. This legislature is adding a retro-active section which is clearly intended to allow Aquila to get around having not followed the law in the first place. I assume because this new language is in effect bad policy they have included an expiration date. Why if the law was inadequate as originally written would they need to add an expiration date to the new section?

Penelope and Bt…

I am not debating the fact that the motivation for writing this new law may be less than honorable to the citizens of Cass County. On its face- it stinks! The retroactive application with expiration is for the benefit of Aquila. – I don’t think anyone would disagree.

If I lived in Cass County, I’d probably be outraged.

The problem lies with the ability of money to influence our government. Lobbyists are welcomed. (Probably more welcomed than the constituents) They wine and dine, give away free concert tickets, put the Rep. up in luxury suites; all so they can buy their vote. Unfortunately, it didn’t just start yesterday, and if it doesn’t directly affect the general population, they rest don’t care enough to stop it. As long as they only screw over one county at a time, they will continue to get away with it. My solution – I won’t vote for an incumbent. Better fix –stop letting the 2 parties run our state and country. (All they really are is anti-Democrats, and anti-Republicans)

To make matters worse, it’s legal. Representatives and Senators propose new laws all the time. Many new laws repeal old law. The ability to permit a new law to be applied retroactively is good, when applied honorably, and not for the sole purpose of helping a cash cow.

I don’t have a problem with the court’s ruling. I think the court ruled in accordance with the law. I don’t have a problem with the citizens complaining; in fact, I applaud it.

I do, however, have a problem with a judge getting involved in politics. It’s not only a violation of the law; it demonstrates that the court is not impartial. If the judge had written a letter, without identifying himself as a judge, to be published in the newspaper, or on a website, I’d have no problem with that. The problem lies with using his courts.gov e-mail account to send it to several hundred people. That involves using the prestige of his position to benefit one side.

The fact that Aquila did not tear down the plant when ordered had to do with appellate procedure. Bond is set by the court, and until their appeal is final, they don’t have to follow the judge’s order. -That’s the way it works. If it didn’t work that way who would rebuild the plant, at whose cost, if the appellate court reversed the decision?

Penelope… Bartle and Koster are in the Senate. 89 members of the House approved the Bill before it was ever sent to the senate. The judges in Barton County are elected by partisan election. Donations to the judges campaign are just as easy to make as those to Representatives or Senators. Besides that –campaign donations are a ruse. The real benefits come from lobbyists.

I only picked them out (Bartles & James) because they were quoted on this blog in reference to the Aquila special law debate wherein one or both expressed mock concern that a few plaintiffs’ families would supposedly getting a windfall if Aquila did the honorable thing and settled the case in lieu of appeal. You totally avoided the issue that this was a case/controversy over which the judiciary has jurisdiction under the constitution. It is not the legislature’s job to come along after the court has ruled on the controversy and put their collective thumb on the scales of justice in favor of the big corporation that lost in court. I don’t want to hear any more whining about judicial activism. Your hypocrisy is breathtaking. P.S. This clearly ain’t a law or treaty in furtherance of the constitution - even the treaty the General Assembly has with Aquila to keep choking down its campaign contributions like a goose being prepped for pate de foie gras does nothing to further that venerable document. Therefore I would hardly classify this legislative tripe as the Supreme Law of the Land as your post #6 seems to suggest.

Wow Penelope…

Those “Bartles and James” Wine Coolers must have kicked in. OR are they Bartles and Koster Wine Coolers?

As I stated in my last post, the provision of HB2279 that would retroactively benefit Aquila “stinks”. It is, however, within the powers granted to the Legislature. If I am incorrect, please point out where and why.

In a 1996 opinion issued by Jay Nixon, he stated:

“Generally, a statute may not be applied retrospectively. [citation omitted]. However, there are two recognized exceptions to this rule: (1) where the statute is procedural only and does not affect any substantive right of the parties, and (2) where the legislature manifests a clear intent that it be applied retrospectively. …”

You can read the full opinion here: http://ago.mo.gov/opinions/1996/188-96.htm

If the voters don’t like what the Legislature does, they should make that clear; first at the primary election, and again at the general elections. Something tells me that the voters will not respond, as it has become more important to support the party, than it is to select their best representative on an individual basis. Maintaining the status quo is all most of the sheeple have a desire to do. I think you can blame the mainstream media for that.

Your unwavering support for judges is telling. Are you a member of the judiciary? Maybe a member of a committee of the judiciary? It is obvious that you desire the courts to be the supreme ruler of the land. That just is not the way our republic is intended to operate.

Judges don’t always have the final say. When necessary, the people, through their elected representatives, have the final say. This might not go along with the secret doctrine intended to give the judiciary greater power, but it is the way a government controlled by the people operates. Our branches of government are indeed separate, but not equal.

Judicial Activism is usurpation of Legislative authority. It is a violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine as defined in Article II of the Missouri Constitution. Therefore, judicial activism is unconstitutional.

However, it is not unconstitutional for the elected representatives of the people to create law with the intent to retroactively relieve a burden. Abuse of that power is wrong, but not unconstitutional.

I have not “avoided the issue that this was a case/controversy over which the judiciary has jurisdiction under the constitution”. I concur with the court having jurisdiction, and I concur with the courts ruling. However, no matter how much you, or I, despise the subsequent acts of the Missouri General Assembly; they are operating within the U.S. and Missouri Constitutions.

Jim, I think you’re missing the forest for the trees.
Aquila broke the law as it existed. No one disputes that. Now the corporate legislature will bail them out.
For some of us, it’s a simple proposition. Curless was right.

Darren01,,,

I agree. Aquila broke the law as it existed.
I agree. The Legislature (probably influenced by lobbyists and the benefits/money thrown in the direction of our elected representatives) is bailing them out. -Which I agree is wrong, however, not unconstitutional, or against the law.
I even think that the opinion of Charles Curless was on target.

My problem is not with Charles Curless, it is with Judge Curless (yes - I know they are one in the same). A judge cannot use their position to influence one side of a political debate. We have laws in place to prevent that. Had the judges e-mail been sent from his home computer, using a personal e-mail account; I would not have a problem with that. Should we ignore the laws affecting judges just because we agree with what the judge says?

Should the Missouri Supreme Court retrospectively repeal the Canons of Judicial Ethics to benefit Judge Curless? Why should they bother? No one enforces their laws, but they want everybody to enforce their rulings. I hope you can see what a dangerous precedent that sets.

What is worse; a Legislature that creates retrospective law to benefit Aquila, or to ignore another law to benefit Judge Curless?

JB-
The Bartles & James reference was (clearly) a joke. You see, this is what it looks like when someone does not take him/herself (or those boobs in the legislature) too seriously. I hope you realize that posting a comment here is not the same as lodging a complaint with Chief Disciplinary Counsel. If you want an answer as to the supposed merits of your claims of impropriety on the part of J. Curless, you should be making your allegations elsewhere.