Political Buzz

Talking WA politics.

NOTICE: Political Buzz has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Political Buzz.
Visit the new section.

TVW video of the House Democrats’ points of parliamentary inquiry related to a possible challenge of I-1053’s supermajority for tax hikes

Post by Peter Callaghan / The News Tribune on June 2, 2011 at 9:28 am with 9 Comments »
June 2, 2011 9:27 am

Before debating and “defeating” a bill to end a tax preference for mortgage banking, House Democrats engaged in a scripted exchange of questions and answers on the issue of whether a supermajority can be required for tax increases.

That’s the requirement under Initiative 1053 but some lawyers think the initiative is unconstitutional. That’s because the constitution sets up the vote required for most bills – a simple majority. Only a constitutional amendment can change that, they argue.

I write about the legal and political implications of such a legal challenge in my column today.

Here’s the TVW video of the three questions from House Democrats and the responses by House Speaker Frank Chopp:

Leave a comment Comments → 9
  1. fatuous says:

    Looks scripted.

  2. molotovrob says:

    Totally scripted and will be from here on out. It is obvious Frank “Pork” Chopp and is minions want to put this issue in front of the state supreme court. The court that just happens to be ripe with like minded liberals. And it is likely to render void the will of the people of the state of Washington.
    Democrats have been running our state into the ground for decades.

  3. pumaintacoma says:

    Quote: the justices ruled, they weren’t going to get involved in an “intrahouse dispute over a parliamentary ruling.” To do so would VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS!!”

    [hmmm again another pattern by Democrats to interfere in the 3 branches of government, your duties are to legislate and not to dictate court proceedings, someone should investigate this repeated patterns by some of our PC Democrats who have done this in formal court proceedings]

    “To get a superior court judge to go their way, they need a different set of facts, an improved set of facts than in Brown,” said Spitzer. Lacking a Senate vote, “it will be too easy for a judge to say, ‘I can’t speculate as to what would have happened in the Senate.’”

    [wow telling how our legislature has turned into "brown shirts" walking and telling all forms of our government what is demanded of them... remember you are there to legislate not interfere in court proceedings... total abuse of our framers and separation of powers!!!]

  4. pumaintacoma, the Legislature never interfered in court proceedings. They made an appeal as is clearly their right. The court simply said that they felt ruling on the matter as it appeared before them, would be interference in the legislative process. Probably a smart ruling.

  5. pumaintacoma says:

    Derek: The court simply said that they felt ruling on the matter as it appeared before them, would be interference in the legislative process.

    So…Then you would agree any legislator who tries to meddle in the private court battles of citizens after a case ruling is interference. Suggest you talk to some of your PC legislative colleagues who do not understand this concept.

  6. olympicmtn says:

    What goes around comes around!

    I recall Majority Leader Brown in 2011 claiming it ” wouldn’t be fair to Harper who was given a clear mandate by the voters and wouldn’t be fair to the voters of the 38th district, who would be denied representation in the Senate for some unspecified period of time.” and “It’s NOT THE JOB of legislators to determine the legality of an election. Nor is it the job of legislators to decide what the remedy should be for an election that did violate the law. That’s the job of the courts.”

    Suggest we let the courts do their job and tell the legislators to butt out of the affairs of the judiciary. Phony democracy in Olympia at work.


  7. Sorry Pumain, I’m unfamiliar with what you’re talking about. I’m guessing its not about this particular case right?

  8. pumaintacoma says:

    Derek says in July 2010 —

    The state, on the other hand, is out of time. WE’RE OUT OF THE RECESSION ….Prices are still plummeting (and with it, sales tax). We’re also seeing the impact of a decade of tax cuts. Voters have been sold “something for nothing” on both sides of the aisle for too long.

    Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/opinion/2010/07/03/recessions-lesson-pay-now-or-pay-much-more-later/#ixzz1ODmTmTd0

  9. Now I’m just totally lost. What does my statement about a different topic a year ago have to do with this?

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0