HOWELL -- Michigan Democrat Party Chair Mark Brewer was supposed to talk about the sweeping Reform Michigan Government Now ballot question Tuesday, but a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court to keep it off the ballot put a crimp in that.
“You all probably know by now that the Supreme Court tanked the speech he was going to give,” said retired Livingston County Circuit Court before Judge Daniel Burress, who introduced Brewer. “The court is not going to let Joe six-pack like us vote on it.”
A major topic of discussion was the state Supreme Court race between Cliff Taylor and Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Diane Marie Hathaway. Taylor leads the Republican majority of activist judges known as the “Gang of Four” that has been rated the worst court in the country.
Burress has his own view of the court, and it’s not good. He said he got a sense of the court’s disdain for the common person over a simple slip and fall case when a blind man slipped on ice and injured himself using the restroom. He said it was tossed out of court because the hazard was “preventable and obvious.”
“That’s the type pf ruling the court has used to throw cases out of court,” he said.
The comprehensive RMGN will amend the Michigan Constitution, and it will fundamentally change Michigan government. To name just a few of the many complex changes it will address, it cuts the Supreme Court Justices to five members, from seven, reduces the Court of Appeals by seven members and adds 10 circuit court judges. The House would be cut to 82 members from the current 110 and the Senate to 28 from 38 and half of the Senate seats would be decided at each election. It also cuts pay and benefits of legislators.
“We have some fine state legislators, but they are not sharing the sacrifices everyone else is making,” Brewer said. “It’s about sharing sacrifice.”
A ballot question to have a constitutional convention will automatically be on the ballot in 2010, and Brewer was asked why not wait until then. Brewer said it would take at least five years before any changes were seen, it would be too expensive and too partisan.
“We can’t wait, it’s too expensive, and too partisan,” he said.
Brewer had plenty to day about the McCain/Palin ticket.
“I really have to laugh when John McCain and Sarah Palin claim to be reformers,” he said. “He says he will fight the lobbyists, but he has Washington lobbyists running his campaign. “
He said the two have received massive amounts of money from big oil, and McCain’s claim to be a “maverick” is ridiculous.
“When he first came to Washington he was part of the Keating 5, a major scandal,” he said. “That wasn’t a very good start.”
He said Palin was vetted so badly by the McCain camp that news is breaking daily on her dismal record and questionable ethics. The most recent is she accepted per diem for travel when she worked at home.
“It’s our job to be the truth squad for the next two months,” he said.
3 comments:
Is this what he meant by the truth squad. This is from your famous source Fact Check.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html
The full quote, from an item by conservative columnist John Fund, dated Sept. 9:
WSJ's John Fund, Sept. 9: Democrats have airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers into Anchorage, the state capital Juneau and Mrs. Palin's hometown of Wasilla to dig into her record and background. My sources report the first wave arrived in Anchorage less than 24 hours after John McCain selected her on August 29.
I also found some other Nobama facts on factcheck
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html
It's true that McCain's voting support for Bush policies has averaged slightly above 89 percent since Bush took office, according to Congressional Quarterly’s vote studies. But it has ebbed and flowed. It reached a low of 77 percent in 2005. Last year it was 95 percent. By comparison, Obama's own record of supporting Bush policies has averaged slightly under 41 percent since the senator took office. However, Obama's voting record is no less partisan than McCain's. He has voted in line with his party an average of nearly 97 percent of the time. The truth is that neither candidate can claim a strong record of "breaking with his party" if Senate votes are the measure.
What this article said is Grampy McSame is lying. The alleged attack on Spiro Palin are not from the Obama campaign.
Since when is it a crime to do opposition research? McSame should have properly vetted her because more and more stuff is coming out everyday about Spiro. That says a lot about Grampy’s judgment, and if he makes rash decisions like that, this country is even more in trouble if by chance he gets lucky and gets elected.
Grampy said himself he voted with Bush 90 percent of the time. In fact, he said he votes with Bush more than other Republicans. I’m glad Obama voted with his party: they weren’t the failed Bush/McSame policies.
Dude, learn a little HTML, blogger renders links if you do it properly, otherwise, you're posting gibberish. Here's the link you tried to give us.
From the article...
Our article criticized anonymous e-mail falsehoods and bogus claims about Palin posted around the Internet. We have no evidence that any of the claims we found to be false came from the Obama campaign.
Regarding the WSJ...John Fund likes to pull things out of his ass, so I wouldn't put too much stock into it.
And finally, regarding McCain's voting record, Obama was using McCain's own words, and he's not running as "The Maverick"©.
Post a Comment