So, was that the will of those other people?

Pat Powers

From Twitter:

From IM22 Election night results:

So, was he actually trying to say that HB 1069 is a hypocritical assault on the will of the people… at least, on the will of those other than the people who elected him?

Just asking.

(p.s.  Dumping IM22 because it’s unconstitutional is probably a far more compelling reason.)

51 thoughts on “So, was that the will of those other people?”

  1. Even in Mr. Nelson’s district, where saner people could call into question some of their voting choices, the majority of people were against The IM #22, which is an unconstitutional abomination.

    And now Mr. Nelson wants to go against their will, even with the courts declaring it unconstitutional and the illegal appropriating of $5,000,000 and the many subjects per law bill?

    Mr. Nelson truly is insaner than most. I hope he votes against this 1069 law bill and his people smite him.

    1. Mr. Nelson is not a City or county commissioner. Mr. Nelson is a STATE Senator. The whole state voted on this, not just the people of his district. So, I don’t see a problem.

  3. “Dumping IM22 because it’s unconstitutional is probably a far more compelling reason.)”

    ….Show me the legal document defining which parts and why they are unConstitutional.

    1. a. Order Granting Preliminary Injunction [12/21/2016].
      i. Paragraph 2: “Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the constitutionality of IM22 are likely to succeed on the merits.”

      b. Order on Severability [12/21/2016].
      i. Paragraph 1: “The court has previously ruled that the Ethics Commission, the Democracy Credits, and the appropriation therefor, all violate various provisions of the South Dakota constitution. The court will not review the same here; the matter was discussed and ruled upon in great detail at hearing. The transcript of that hearing will serve as a record of the courts’ decision upon the injunction.”
      ii. Paragraph 4: “[T]he court has stricken and will continue to hold that all provisions relating to an Ethics Commission, and any appropriation therefor, are stricken as unconstitutionally constructed and funded.”
      iii. Paragraph 15: “[T]he court has already found the enforcement arm and its funding to be unconstitutional . . .”

      c. Transcript of Hearing [12/08/2016].
      i. Page 86:21-87: “You still have . . . got to show clearly unmistakably beyond doubt, and, frankly, I’m not going to decide this issue of do they have to show it by the preliminary injunction standard or by the [un]constitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. I think it meets both of those standards. There’s no question in my mind, for instance, that the appropriation is outside the Constitution. . . . Neither the legislature nor the voters by statutory initiative can override, veto, define, or eliminate constitutional requirements. . . . The people’s right to initiate is subject to constitutional rules so as to protect integrity of the process.”

      So shut up already.

      1. “The court has previously ruled that the Ethics Commission, the Democracy Credits, and the appropriation therefor, all violate various provisions of the South Dakota constitution. The court will not review the same here;”— What court?- Did a court rule BEFORE Barnett heard the case? If your supposed finding is not from Barnett-= WHO signed it?

        “The transcript of that hearing will serve as a record of the courts’ decision upon the injunction.”-My point sir, is THAT transcript…where is it?- I have no idea what your post is from nor who signed it….– I do appreciate, your info IF your post is legitimate, ..It is the FIRST of its kind after weeks of nothing being produced….

        What is the source of your post? Who signed it? What it the “court” referred to in the post?—– What court ruled it unConstitutional —BEFORE –Barnett heard the case?— assuming your post is supposed to be Burnetts finding?–Where IS the transcript of that ruling?—– If yo cannot answer those questions you have nothing sir but an unsubstantiated comment…. no more..
        ——————
        “So shut up already..”?– ESAD sir,– You have nothing.————— I would never insinuate that I don’t trust the conservatives to be honest——- I shout it LOUDLY that I don’t trust conservatives….

    2. Jaa Dee you are as slow as Stace…you ask this same question repeatedly and it has been said repeatedly Judge Barnett declared it unconstitutional….

      1. I agree we heard it from Judge Barnet’s mouth retweeted by Bob Mercer immediately and put into writing days later….UNCONSTITUTIONAL

      3. “it has been said repeatedly Judge Barnett declared it unconstitutional”– So what? It could be “said repeatedly “— that conservatives don’t lie— that sure doesn’t make it true.

  4. The IM #22 is a sloppily written unconstitutional affront on the rights of common South Dakotans, foisted on them by rich out-of-state interests using dark money and lies. What a heinous mess, The IM #22 is.

  5. At least the people in Mr. Nelson’s district were smart enough to see through the hoodwinking and unconstitutionality and vast, bloated spending on politicians. At least District 19 voted NO on The IM #22.

  6. What did the 7th Senate Democrat say now?

    He is a fraud…he only attacks Republicans, stands with Democrats ( Weiland and when they need a 7th vote)

    Conservative , yeah right….

  7. You should have gone to the Brookings legislative forum/coffee, Pat.
    Half the people there were convinced that IM 22 is the best thing they ever voted for, they weren’t hoodwinked, they know what’s in it and they don’t care if it’s unconstitutional. When told “it’s unconstitutional” a woman behind me said “well can’t you amend it?” I don’t know if she thinks the law should be amended or the state constitution should be.
    But they are convinced the members of the legislature are on the take, stuffing cash into their socks, pocketing gold watches and eating steak and lobster every evening at lobbyist expense.
    They are not impressed by arcane explanations about procedures and think the emergency declaration was just obfuscation.

    After seeing that circus I am afraid there is no way out of IM 22. The legislature needs to appropriate the money, take it from the education budget, and point out that teachers can’t serve in the legislature because they have lobbyists. And neither can anybody else with an income, for that matter. So they will all have to resign and the governor will appoint replacements from among the residents of the Bishop Dudley House. because nobody else is going to qualify.

    1. Anne is right. I hear the same thing.

      The GOP is not winning the publicity battle at all. It has nothing to do with EB 5

  8. 27 of 29 GOP Senators are sponsors….just Lance Russell and Stace Nelson, thrown out of the caucus once before and still standing alone together…

    1. Well isn’t that special: isn’t Lance a lawyer? Don’t the lawyers have lobbyists?
      He must resign immediately.

  9. Oh, and Stace is a veteran. Military retirement pay? The vets have lobbyists.
    kick him out too

  10. Somebody break out the popcorn! Probably not the brightest idea to go after Nelson and Russell. They seem pretty capable of arguing their points and coming out on top in disputes with the moderate establishment “Republicans.”

    1. Maybe we should look into Russell’s clients. I bet some of them have lobbyists, too. There should be plenty of embarrassment to spread around.

    2. Russell might be capable. Stace will just yell and string a few big words together whether he knows the meaning or not,

    3. Yeah everyone who is not with Stace and lance is a moderate establishment Republican, we know no one is as pure as them…wake up! the entire caucus is for this but them!

  11. Folks,

    Jaa Dee is a conservative troll intent on making liberals look stupid. Such an approach doesn’t enhance discussion and I wish he’d stop. Liberals make themselves look stupid on their own.

  12. Random thought——–
    I for one really miss reading Bob Mercer. Never not even once did I stream out his explanation for a bill or an idea and have it attacked. Get well soon Mercer!

    1. Indeed Charlie, read what he has to say here: “If voters turn against Republican candidates in 2018, the treatment of voters in the IM 22 saga might be a big reason. It’s been surprising how many Republican legislators have been able to read voters’ minds and declare the voters didn’t know what they were doing when they passed IM 22. If there is a scientific survey that supports it, the Republicans would have information on their side. In the meantime, we’re left with ESP.”

      http://my605.com/pierrereview/?p=14057

  13. RE IM22:

    Senator Nelson: “It’s law.”
    Circuit Judge Barnett: “It’s unConstitutional”

    I know I’m in the minority but I think the Legislature should

    1) Quit trying to fix IM22 and just let the status quo continue until the Supreme Court rules.

    2) Place $12mm in a special fund pending the Supreme Court ruling and list the FY2017 Budget Items cut to fund the $12mm and let the voters know the cost of the program.

      1. IM 22 is a bad law but sometimes you get what you deserve. No one really knows what IM 22 is about. It is elections and lobbying. Everyone thinks it’s EB5 and Gear Up. It does nothing about that.

        They need to rip the band aid off or live with IM 22.

      2. Current leadership is not a wreck, the transgressions by Wollman were under two leaders who are no longer serving. The current leadership started the investigation the day after they had powers to (being sworn in).

    2. Exactly, perhaps the voters will determine modifications are needed after realizing there are aspects that may have been misunderstood, or misrepresented, but until they do, place the $12 million into a special fund pending appeal and list the budget item cuts required to implement it.

    3. William and Troy I agree with you and Mercer 100% on this and have as such stated so many times. Doing so would provide solid proof that one; our Legislature is not being bought by outside interests, two; money has to come from somewhere and if a favorite program is cut to provide political campaign material so be it, three; we must implement tougher standards in putting IM’s on the ballot.

    4. In thought Troy that would be a good plan but unfortunately in reality it is not for two reasons:
      1. With the passage of IM22 and the subsequent finding by Judge Barnett it has left the legislature with basically no ethics laws so the Legislature needs to address this now while they are actually in session
      2. We have no idea when the Supreme Court will decide the fate of IM22, so operating under no laws is not what anybody wants (since the Judge had already granted the injunction they were not in effect prior to the legislative filing to revoke) and allows the legislature to try to constitutionally enact measures that address the gift ban, ethics commission, etc
      No One would have to file suit or revoke if the people who drafted IM 22 had actually listened to AG MJ or SOS SK

  14. Did you just pull out 5 counties and try to pass it off as representative of the whole? Pretty aggressive assault on logic.

    1. “You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into.” – Jonathan Swift

  16. There are only two potential answers to what drives this guy–

    1- He honestly thinks that he is smarter, has more integrity, and greater insight than anyone else in the state capitol, on every issue, every day… or,

    2- He is a drama queen that is starving for attention.

    Maybe a little of both… but, whatever it is, he is a time waster, and a money waster. It still baffles me that he continues to get elected… What are the people in his district thinking???

  17. Since IM 22 is all about the lobbyists, and the people want to get rid of lobbyists, explaining to them that the lobbyists are good sources of information does no good at all. The public wants their legislators to be as uninformed as possible. Information is bad and nobody should have any.
    The solution is for the legislature to enact all the provisions of IM 22 and then resign due to conflicts of interest. Anybody who doesn’t resign will be investigated for conflicts of interest which should not be difficult to find: surely among all their sisters and their cousins and their aunts are relatives who are working for a business which hires lobbyists. So then everybody goes home, and the headlines will be hilarious.

  18. Jaa Dee,

    We have told you repeatedly the substance of Judge Barnett’s ruling which has also been described by the press.

    As has been told to you several times which you ignore:

    Judge Barnett made the ruling from the bench, the transcript is the written record, and such is available for review at the Circuit Court (if the transcript has been reduced to writing as I don’t know how long it takes for this to happen). If you want a written copy, you can go to the court yourself as I’m not going to do it for you.

  19. Ironically, Stace said this today on DakotaFreePress: “I do NOT work for the other legislators. I do not work or answer to the “leadership” you fawn over and pledge your undying fealty to, I work for every constituent in my district to the best of my principles will allow.”

      1. He is good at say NO, sometimes HELL NO, but that is about it…..

        apparently with this issue he is not working for his district

  20. This guy’s whole twitter feed is such garbage. Not only can Stace not handle anyone disagreeing with him…he seeks vengeance on them. He has to tattle to the NRA when people kill his little buddy Dennert’s fluff bill, he’s working with Heidelburger to screw his own leadership over this Wollman deal after trying to fulfill his own vendetta against him…Stace Nelson is a total PUKE.

  22. We need to remember that the is pretty much the same district that kept sending Frank Kloucek to Pierre, enough said.

Comments are closed.