Senate panel OKs Aquila bill
A senate panel gave the OK this morning to a bill that would give investor-owned utility Aquila to keep its Cass County peaking plant that the company built after a judge told them not to.
They did so only after inserting a provision that would guarantee citizens in the area the right to sue the utility. After the House passed its version of the bill, Aquila offered affected residents a settlement proposal.
That provision assuaged the concerns of Sen. Chris Koster, D-Harrisonville, who has been a critic of the plant. The provision makes sure “we were not pulling the rug out from under them in the legalization of this plant.”
Sen. Kevin Engler, R-Farmington, is the chairman of the committee, which held a hearing on the bill yesterday. He said he wanted to send the bill to the Senate floor by next week.
“Some people still aren’t happy with Aquila, but we want to go forward,” he said.
But Sen. Tim Green, D-Spanish Lake, had concerns about the negotiations on the bill.
“Have we talked to the public counsel at all?” he asked. “Once in a while I’m just asking questions that would affect the 170,000 people I represent instead of the people in this building.”
The Office of Public Counsel represents the public in utility matters. It opposes the Aquilia legislation.
Some senators, such as Sen. Luann Ridgeway, R-Smithville, said the bill is just common sense: “It’s my constituents that are going to be paying the bills for the nonsense of tearing the plant down and building it back up.”
The committee approved the bill by a vote of 9-1, with Sen. Joan Bray, D-University City, as the dissenting vote.
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.