Mr Mink:

It really really scares you when the people of this state actually vote on their laws doesn’t it?

Let the people decide!

Eric,
I think the problem many people have with our courts is that they are run by lawyers. I was having lunch recently with a conservative GOP candidate for State Senate and I was a bit surprised that even he was against letting the people select judges. Of course, he’s a member of the club that gets to select them, we’re not. There is also a real and genuine fear that school expenditures are out of control. Anyone who looks at the bloated bureacracies that run schools today understands there is plenty of money for education, but not enough for a lot of the court ordered programs like bussing. I don’t think anyone can argue that those of us in schools in the a950’s obtained a better education that kids are getting today. So the fear of a judge ordering a property tax hike is real and has been with the recent lawsuit brought by school districts. Perhaps a more specific amendment capping expenses for schools without a vote of the taxpayers in that district would be more productive than this. Since there are already state imposed minimums, it would seem this would be fair. I would also prefer to see more lay people involved in the selection process of judges. When the Chief Justice and the State Bar control the process it creates a special class that is in charge of one third of our government. Last time I checked, special classes were unconsitutional.

Folks:

Thanks for the comments, and again, let me offer this reminder about our process.

The posts you see noted here on The Platform as “Published editorials” represent the consensus view of the Editorial Board of the newspaper — not the opinion of an individual.

I’m a member of that board and participate in the discussions in which we find that consensus. But these editorials are not expressions of MY opinion. My name appears at the top of the posts only because I was the editor assigned to make sure they got posted.

Mr Mink:

“You are either part of the problem or you’re part of the cure.”

Anytime you want to share with us that you don’t support the view of the Ed Brd. please do so.

How many votes on the Ed Brd would have to change to back McCain for President? How many to back a Republican over Nixon for Governor? Not knowing how many sit on the Board I’d guess it would be a number equal to 51%

Which takes us back to the first sentence of my post.

Mr. Mink,

If this is indeed a concensus opinion of the editorial board, then I suggest you take your name and your picture and bio off the web posting as you will get personally blamed for these boneheaded op-eds. Interesting that you distance yourself from the opinion, but then put your name, picture, and bio on the web posting as if you are campaigning for student body president..???

A tad harsh, West End Guy, and way too suspicious.

My previous comment wasn’t about the content of the editorial. The point of the comment simply was to remind readers — as I did once last week — of what the point of view expressed by any Post-Dispatch editorial really represents. It’s not an individual’s view; it’s an institutional view.

You’re absolutely right, of course, that the presence of a specific person’s name/bio/photo on these posts suggests authorship, and we realized right away that that was a problem.

But, hey, our department’s only been producing a blog for about 10 days, and it probably won’t surprise you to hear that we didn’t design the format and couldn’t write code if our lives depended on it. For that, we rely on very busy colleagues who know what they’re doing in these areas. We’ve asked for and been assured of getting help correcting the situation. But sometimes things don’t move as quickly in a large organization as everyone would like them to.

the Missouri House passed a measure so boundlessly destructive and unnecessary that it almost goes without saying that it was sponsored by Rep. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield.

Has to be one of the best lines ever written to describe Ms. Cunningham.

But with that said I think I will classify Burnett, Donnelly, LaVota and Mink’s wildly paranoid feeling right up there with those who said that if Mo passes a conceal and carry law there will be blooding running in the streets and shoot-outs in the middle of the road and during normal bar fights. Burnett has been known to go wildly overboard in his fears while on the house floor.

I would venture to guess that not an appeals court in the country would read this so-called flawed law the same way the above mentioned do. The spirit of this law is that a judge cannot order the state to say, oh i dont know, rewrite then entire public school funding formula and thus from the bench order the state to spend billions more per year. I do not think that on appeal an appeals court would look at Mr. Smith who was hit by a drunken trash truck driver and say “sorry Mr. Smith can’t give ya any money until the state appropriates it”

I think this is a case where on one side you have chicken little yelling the sky is falling yelling into the mirror. Jane, I am sure has some sort of bunker built under her house to protect her and her family not if but when liberal judges attack her suburban st. louis home. But at the same time I believe Mr. Mink, John Burnett, Donnelly and LaVota all fear anything passed by and supported by anyone who does not vote democrat.

I am writing a check to Rep. Cunningham’s campaign fund right now. This is a major step forward for those who understand that the money “public servants” so blithely spend belongs to the taxpayers, and is taken from them by their consent. Those who want to take our money should have to answer for it, in terms of standing for election and answering for public debate. As for the potential downsides, forgive me if I fail to feel sorry that ambulance chasing lawyers might find it more difficult to feed at the public trough. Please keep up the good work, Rep. Cunningham, and keep the state out of our lives to the greatest extent possible!

If, as the editorial states, no state judge has ever ordered a tax increase, then why are the lefties at the Post so upset about this that they have sunk to a juvenile ad hominem like calling a member of the state legislature “Calamity Jane?” Perhaps they are rooting for lawsuits such as the floundering effort by some school districts to impose higher state funding by judicial fiat, which is of course the primary motive of those supporting this.

Well said Nick! (post #9)

That is what this is all about… the left NEEDS the courts to give them what neither the people or the Legislature would ever approve.

Does anyone here want to defend the courts setting or levying taxes?