Apparently this, no smoking anywhere thing is spreading across Mississippi. See the city of Ridgeland passing an ordinance banning smoking city wide. This adds Ridgeland to the list of Tupelo, Hattiesburg, Mantachie, Oxford and others. Let me first identify myself as someone who is not a smoker, never has been a smoker and am somewhat allergic to lots of smoke. Most would think I would be in favor this, I am not. However, people should look at ordnances like this as objectionably.
1. This isn't city/county property they are influencing, it's private property.
2. These cities are telling business how to operate and what type of clientele are acceptable.
3. If a restaurant/business wants to be smoke free it can do that without an ordinance.
4. If someone doesn't want to visit a restaurant/business because it is smokey then they can leave and go elsewhere. It is the same idea as changing the channel on your television if you don't like what is on.
5. If a business loses customers because of smoke that is their right and their business model will/should determine if they want to be smoke free.
6. Cigarettes are not illegal.
I am not saying that Ridgeland have done anything illegal, ordinances like this do most likely fall under "public welfare" and if the people vote to want it then they can have it in this great democracy we live in. What I am saying is that it's not smart, and its not fair. Ordinances like these are social segregation, instead of whites telling blacks "You can't live here" it's non-smokers telling smokers on their own private property "You can't smoke here". And don't start with arguments about well you can ban drugs on your own private property, it's because those things are per se violations of law, lighting a cigarette is not. I can, and have, walked out of a restaurant because it was too smokey, I have left a casino sooner rather than later because of smoke, these were my decisions and they my appropriate response to a businesses decision. Now the businesses don't get to make the decision anymore, that has been taken over by the anti-smoking special interest and the Board of Aldermen
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
It's time for the gloves to come off in the Lt. Governor's race
The Republicans get to choose between Charlie Ross and Phil Bryant this August, a mere 2 months away and it seems like this week the campaign has really kicked into full gear. Ross started running campaign ads this week and Bryant can't be far behind. We have seen some jabs back and forth but Bryant's association with the Partnership and several jabs at failed audits. I haven't seen as much out of Bryant to this point but he is ahead in most polling so he might be holding out for now. Both Ross and Bryant have over a half million dollars in the bank, I believe last reports were that Ross had over a Million in Cash on Hand, and in two months any left over will just be wasted for one of them so see things pick up in the near future.
For my money I bet Bryant will win the nomination simply because not enough Repubs know Charlie Ross despite the fact, IMO, Ross is the more polished, smarter and probably more effective candidate. At some point political races are just popularity contest when the 2 candidates run on almost all of the same issues which is what Ross and Bryant are doing. Additionally, Bryant has the endorsement of the Home Builders Association, Realators Association, Paul Gallo (who has a wide audience in the Republican households) and Don Wildman (far-right Tupelo religous advocate/zealot) and as silly as it sounds endorsements do mean something when they all pile up for one person.
For my money I bet Bryant will win the nomination simply because not enough Repubs know Charlie Ross despite the fact, IMO, Ross is the more polished, smarter and probably more effective candidate. At some point political races are just popularity contest when the 2 candidates run on almost all of the same issues which is what Ross and Bryant are doing. Additionally, Bryant has the endorsement of the Home Builders Association, Realators Association, Paul Gallo (who has a wide audience in the Republican households) and Don Wildman (far-right Tupelo religous advocate/zealot) and as silly as it sounds endorsements do mean something when they all pile up for one person.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Judicial Qualifications
In the light of Judge Leslie Southwick having his nomination being taken back up today I wanted to try and put forth an open thread with more of a question.
What do you think are proper qualifications for a Federal Judge?
I think Polly, one of our new writers, is working on a Southwick post and you have already seen posts by me and comments by Representative Green on the subject so I open up the floor to you, the reader.
What do you think are proper qualifications for a Federal Judge?
I think Polly, one of our new writers, is working on a Southwick post and you have already seen posts by me and comments by Representative Green on the subject so I open up the floor to you, the reader.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Party Registration for Primaries
I didn't want to let the week pass without at least touching on this story. Late last week US District Judge Allan Pepper ruled that political parties have a right to stop non-party members from voting in their primary elections and suggested that party registration and voter ID would do that. Several different issues that greatly influence Mississippi jump out of this.
1. parties can exclude non-party members
2. party registration is / will be required
3. voter i.d. is being pushed by the courts
I will take these issues separately:
1. I don't have a big problem with this idea, if a candidate is to be chosen as the "Democratic" or "Republican" candidate then only members of those parties are the people who should be selecting them. I realize the arguments such as "there are only 2 parties that can win" and "if you don't vote in the primary you're left with no choice" but to me if a candidate is to represent a party he should be voted to that position by members of that party, not outsiders. Now I'm starting to sound like Ellis Turnage, who IMO is a big nut-job, but on this idea maybe we agree.
2. Party registration being required is another good idea, how do you know who you are as a group without having a list of some sort. Fears of party registration go back to the Red Scare (and before I'm sure) in America but I just don't see the problem. Many people say that there are only 2 parties and if you can't vote in one of those primaries your choices are limited to an extent that it corrupts the process. I just don't believe that, if enough people are unhappy with a party that party will go away, if enough people who are unhappy form together a new party will be founded. History is our proving ground for this, in the beginning there were Federalist and Anti-Federalist (Democratic-Republicans), there were Whigs and Free-Soilers, there were Know-nothings, Greenbacks and Populist Parties and there were Bull Mooser's, Socialist, Democrat and Republican parties, Parties come and go, power swings back and forth and the more power these "third-party" parties get the more neutralized the big 2 become, just look at the evolution of the Republican party from Lincoln to Reagan and look at how Republicans have changed from Willkie to Bush 43 (from economic conservatism to mass social spending and debt creation). All of this is said to show that just because you aren't voting in one of the big 2 parties doesn't mean your ideas won't be heard.
3. voter i.d. seems to be pushed by this ruling. I, personally am a fan of voter i.d. I think I understand the premise behind it's opponents that some voters feel hassled, that some voters become afraid because things like i.d. prevented them from voting 40 years ago.
Let me start with saying it is not that much of a hassle. If you can drag yourself up to the ballot box you can come up to the circuit clerks office and fill out a new voter registration form. If you don't have an i.d. because you don't drive then they can get you an i.d. just for voting, we have special i.d.'s for military, special i.d.'s for gun permits, this would not be a problem. And for the most extreme of cases, those shut-ins and disabled people I'm sure a decent exception could be offered of an in-home visit by a clerk's assistant to verify. Keep it mind these exceptions would rarely, if ever, be used.
As for those people who say well my grandma was harassed by a poll tax way back when and I shouldn't be hassled, you should grow up. Voter intimidation in the 60's and before did happen but that was 40 years ago, and now we actually have a system in place to deal with voter intimidation if it were to rear its ugly head. This simply is not a modern day problem and we cannot let fear of issues of a half a century ago influence something as important as getting an accurate voting system.
My one slight problem with this issue is that voter i.d. shouldn't be pushed by the courts, it should be pushed by the people. The people's voice is in the legislature and I simply do not understand the lock the "Black Caucus" has on any voter i.d. bill that comes through the State House of Representatives. Let it pass, your voters will be leery the first time but after that everything will be fine, people are scared of change, of the unknown, but this is a good thing that keeps everyone above board.
As always we welcome comments and ideas.
1. parties can exclude non-party members
2. party registration is / will be required
3. voter i.d. is being pushed by the courts
I will take these issues separately:
1. I don't have a big problem with this idea, if a candidate is to be chosen as the "Democratic" or "Republican" candidate then only members of those parties are the people who should be selecting them. I realize the arguments such as "there are only 2 parties that can win" and "if you don't vote in the primary you're left with no choice" but to me if a candidate is to represent a party he should be voted to that position by members of that party, not outsiders. Now I'm starting to sound like Ellis Turnage, who IMO is a big nut-job, but on this idea maybe we agree.
2. Party registration being required is another good idea, how do you know who you are as a group without having a list of some sort. Fears of party registration go back to the Red Scare (and before I'm sure) in America but I just don't see the problem. Many people say that there are only 2 parties and if you can't vote in one of those primaries your choices are limited to an extent that it corrupts the process. I just don't believe that, if enough people are unhappy with a party that party will go away, if enough people who are unhappy form together a new party will be founded. History is our proving ground for this, in the beginning there were Federalist and Anti-Federalist (Democratic-Republicans), there were Whigs and Free-Soilers, there were Know-nothings, Greenbacks and Populist Parties and there were Bull Mooser's, Socialist, Democrat and Republican parties, Parties come and go, power swings back and forth and the more power these "third-party" parties get the more neutralized the big 2 become, just look at the evolution of the Republican party from Lincoln to Reagan and look at how Republicans have changed from Willkie to Bush 43 (from economic conservatism to mass social spending and debt creation). All of this is said to show that just because you aren't voting in one of the big 2 parties doesn't mean your ideas won't be heard.
3. voter i.d. seems to be pushed by this ruling. I, personally am a fan of voter i.d. I think I understand the premise behind it's opponents that some voters feel hassled, that some voters become afraid because things like i.d. prevented them from voting 40 years ago.
Let me start with saying it is not that much of a hassle. If you can drag yourself up to the ballot box you can come up to the circuit clerks office and fill out a new voter registration form. If you don't have an i.d. because you don't drive then they can get you an i.d. just for voting, we have special i.d.'s for military, special i.d.'s for gun permits, this would not be a problem. And for the most extreme of cases, those shut-ins and disabled people I'm sure a decent exception could be offered of an in-home visit by a clerk's assistant to verify. Keep it mind these exceptions would rarely, if ever, be used.
As for those people who say well my grandma was harassed by a poll tax way back when and I shouldn't be hassled, you should grow up. Voter intimidation in the 60's and before did happen but that was 40 years ago, and now we actually have a system in place to deal with voter intimidation if it were to rear its ugly head. This simply is not a modern day problem and we cannot let fear of issues of a half a century ago influence something as important as getting an accurate voting system.
My one slight problem with this issue is that voter i.d. shouldn't be pushed by the courts, it should be pushed by the people. The people's voice is in the legislature and I simply do not understand the lock the "Black Caucus" has on any voter i.d. bill that comes through the State House of Representatives. Let it pass, your voters will be leery the first time but after that everything will be fine, people are scared of change, of the unknown, but this is a good thing that keeps everyone above board.
As always we welcome comments and ideas.
Monday, June 11, 2007
MS Supreme Court talks about Justice Court Judge Qualifications
I really found this opinion, Montgomery v. Lowndes County Democratic Executive Committee, interesting. Late last year myself and 2 other reference librarians I work with all considered running for an open Justice Court Judgeship in Rankin County. However, none of us lived in the district represented. We did a little research and could not find anything saying you must live in the district but common sense says you should live in the district and we all kind of dismissed the idea (plus we are all pretty busy so it was mostly just talk anyway).
Then last week the Supreme Court handed down the opinion in Montgomery which clearly provides that we were right about the law and wrong in our assumption. Apparently the only qualifications are those explicitly laid out in the Mississippi Constitution, Sec. 171 and 241, and being in the county is enough and being in the district in not required. This is despite a somewhat on point law, 23-15-359, and an Attorney General's Opinion that disagreed with where the Court went.
Let me take this as an opportunity to share that AG opinions are almost entirely worthless, they are kind of like Presidential singing statements and carry no weight and in modern day legalities carry no sway (unlike the sway they might have carried in the early 20th century). This is not a fault or indictment on the AG's office but just a simple truth that no one should pay attention to them because the courts do not.
As always feedback and/or discussion is welcomed.
Then last week the Supreme Court handed down the opinion in Montgomery which clearly provides that we were right about the law and wrong in our assumption. Apparently the only qualifications are those explicitly laid out in the Mississippi Constitution, Sec. 171 and 241, and being in the county is enough and being in the district in not required. This is despite a somewhat on point law, 23-15-359, and an Attorney General's Opinion that disagreed with where the Court went.
Let me take this as an opportunity to share that AG opinions are almost entirely worthless, they are kind of like Presidential singing statements and carry no weight and in modern day legalities carry no sway (unlike the sway they might have carried in the early 20th century). This is not a fault or indictment on the AG's office but just a simple truth that no one should pay attention to them because the courts do not.
As always feedback and/or discussion is welcomed.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Southwick Nomination
The latest news on Judge Leslie Southwick's nomination to the 5th circuit is that a second scheduled vote has been postponed, thereby putting him in some sort of holding pattern. For an article see here. I post this here because this blog has gotten a lot of traffic regarding Judge Southwick.
If you have any comments either pro or con regarding Judge Southwick we welcome debate at Mississippi Law and we welcome your point of view; however, if you are willing to dish it out please be willing to take it also.
If you have any comments either pro or con regarding Judge Southwick we welcome debate at Mississippi Law and we welcome your point of view; however, if you are willing to dish it out please be willing to take it also.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
