Judicial Council: the controversy grows

Here is a post I published today on http://jillclarkcontinues.wordpress.com

I asked Tuesday, via email to Carla Heyl, for a copy of the order that is said to have “authorized” the Judicial Council.

I do not have a record of receiving that order via email.

I found something on the website last night:  I am dubious about this document.  I would like to see an original, with original signature of Kathleen Blatz.

At the bottom of this post is what I found online (it is five pages, three pages of order, and two attachment pages – a chart of what committess/conferences, etc. were ‘merged’ into the newly-forming Judicial Council).  I have to say that having reviewed this document, I have more concerns.  I will continue to blog about those.  At this time, I do not recognize the Judicial Council’s authority.

See also this representation of a December 10, 2004 document that I found online, purporting to transfer the authority to appoint the Court Administrator to the Judicial Council:

image

Even if I accepted the authenticity of the “orders” I found online, I still have grave concerns.

The People of the State of Minnesota ceded their authority to the MN government in exchange for the promises in the Minnesota Constitution.  That is the foundation of our democracy.

See Art. VI, sec. 2, which states in pertinent part:

The supreme court shall appoint to serve at its pleasure a clerk, a reporter, a state law librarian and other necessary employees. [Amended, November 2, 1982]

You can see that the Supreme Court was ceded the authority by the People.  That cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment.  See the language I copied above, showing that the section was amended in 1982.   No matter what the “Transformation Workshop” decided in 2004 that a merged council would be a good idea:  the Constitution must be followed.

A good motive does not negate a constitutional violation.  For a good example of this, see Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assoc. (2011) in whicih the Supreme Court of the United States explains that a noble motive did not insulate a California statute from First Amendment scrutiny.  Indeed, the statute was stricken.

Likewise, here, no motive that the Judicial Council is more “efficient” (or any similar attempt at justification) will insulated the “administrative order” bearing Chief Justice Blatz’ signature, from scrutiny.

imageimage

imageimage

image