Wednesday, August 27, 2008

And ...

Wow.

Yep, this isn't a partisan witchhunt at all.

5 Comments:

Blogger griftdrift said...

Because she appealed a highly questionable ruling? You've got to be kidding me.

8:58 AM  
Blogger Jmac said...

Ah, Grift ... that's cute.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that there wasn't anything questionable about Handel's ruling staggers me. You have conceded here that other factors may be considered in determining residency in addition to the homestead exemption, and as I've noted, it's perfectly logical to see how the ALJ and Judge Shoob used such permissable additional factors in rightfully justifying Powell's residency.

The SoS is now appealing rulings that have come from two different legal sources solely because they are contrary to her personal opinion, and she's doing it at the expense of taxpayers and throwing the fate of this particular race into jeopardy.

I can accept an argument that Handel merely had a different interpretation of the law, but she's sought a legal opinion from the ALJ (which she ignored) and then received a ruling from a judge (which she won't accept).

This is madness. Does anyone really doubt that Powell lives in the district? No one seems to actually, and we're haggling over details (which the law allows for as you note), but the law also allows for the consideration of other factors ... and said consideration gives us the broader picture.

If it was open-and-close homestead exemption and that's it, that would be one thing (though it would be a horrible ineffective and inaccurate way to establish residency), but that ain't the case. Additional factors may be considered, and those factors prove Powell's residency.

9:12 AM  
Blogger bill said...

Grift, are you a lawyer? I don't mean that in snarky, "if you don't have a law degree then shut the hell up" kind of way. I'm just curious.

I have not paid as much attention to this story as you or Jmac, and full disclosure, I haven't been able to examine the full record of the ALJ hearing.

That being said, I am curious as to why you feel this ruling is "highly questionable." At one point, you questioned it's brevity, the fact that it's hand-written, and the judge's statutory authority to overrule Handel's decision.

I've only appeared before Judge Shoob a couple of times, but she certainly didn't set off my "kook-radar" on those occasions.

As for the handwritten, One of the smartest, most neutral judges I ever praticed in front of routinely issued hand-written orders from the bench, often multi-page, and generally illegible. They were still valid orders of the court.

As for the reasoning behind the order the fact that I find most compelling was Powell's assertions during the ALJ hearing that he had tried top change his homestead from cobb to towns county last fall and missed the deadline to do so.

Assuming the ALJ, who is in the position to, and charged with the task of, judging the weight and credibility of the evidence presented, found that fact, and the other factors presented, both credible and compelling, then why is Handel's decision to reject that decision, which I understand was NOT ambivalent in any way, anything but arbitrary?

(Damn that's a lot of commas, must have more coffee)

So therefore, a reviewing judge, looking at the record of the evidentiary hearing, reading Handel's reasoning for ignoring the findings of fact and recommendations from the hearing, and finding Handel's actions arbitrary... why is that so questionable??

-wmo

9:35 AM  
Blogger griftdrift said...

Is every Democrat I talk to about this high?

I have acknowledged that Handel's decision was questionable. I've done it repeatedly. But it seems as with many things political if I don't agree with your side 100%, if I have the temerity to point out where you are wrong, I'm a shill or it's staggering or some other hyperbolic proclamation followed by the rending of clothes.

She did not seek the advice of the ALJ, she is required by law to have the ALJ hold a hearing.

She received a ruling from a judge who apparently ignored the limitations placed on the judiciary by the statute to the point of stating in open court that homestead (which for the 1000th time is an explicit indicator of residence) had little relevance. Hell, based on her statement I'm not even sure she understands what Homestead is.

Appealing that ain't frivilous. Politically motivated perhaps but defining separation of powers is never frivilous.

And here are two things the Democrats refuse to acknowledge. What Handel did was completely legal and Powell's not moving homestead was apparently self-serving financially.

But I'm the one being an obstinate ass.

It's getting to the point where I believe I'm going to enjoy watching Democrats yet again overplay their hand and get their butts handed to them down the line.

9:48 AM  
Blogger griftdrift said...

Bill, no I am not a lawyer. Why is it questionable? Because the law sets severe limitations of what the superior court judge can rule. In my opinion Shoob went way past that.

And I wish that Democrats would just admit they are happy because they got a big political victory instead of some high holy grail of legality and move on.

And frankly I'm right effing sick of the whole thing.

9:52 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home