Gunpowder Chronicle posted on January 5, 2008 9:50 AM | Rating:
| Views: 193
Austin Shlick, head of the Attorney General's Office on Civil Litigation, was caught in court yesterday with his pants on fire, according to the Calvert Street Communist Party Newsletter.
During arguments before Carroll County Circuit Judge Thomas F. Stansfield in the case I have dubbed "Day Late and a Dollar Short" (or, the GOP lawsuit against the state for Mary Monahan's lying and deception), Shlick argued that the laws passed during the Special Session should not be invalidated because... as the CSCPN put it, "the alleged technical error does not justify the budgetary crisis that would ensue if the tax increases were voided."
Mr. Schlick, YOUR PANTS ARE ON FIRE!
The so-called budgetary crisis was never going to be a crisis until the beginning of the 2008 FISCAL YEAR... that is JULY 1,2008. We are still in FISCAL 2007 until June 30th. This whole farce concocted by O'Guvnah that the General Assembly had to MEET NOW! to solve the problem was BOLD FACED LIE. If the General Assembly had to re-do all that legislation in the normal session slated to begin next week, there would be NO CRISIS.
Oh wait, there would. Because in a regular session, different rules apply. Committees have to review legislation and hold hearings. You can just push the legislation through the floor. You can't do joint sessions. THE PEOPLE -- who the General Assembly purports to work for and represent -- would have an opportunity to be involved through direct lobbying, emails, phone calls, and letters. Even better-- grass roots campaigns and talk radio would have an opportunity to exert its pressure.
Which is what O'Guvnah was really trying to avoid in the Special Session. Because everyone knows that O'Guvnah doesn't like citizen participation in the process.
One other comment. This just struck me... I think Mr. Schlick made a huge strategic error (and one I wouldn't expect an experienced attorney to make). Look at the construction of the CSCPN summary of his comments:
Schlick also argued the alleged technical error does not justify the budgetary crisis that would ensue if the tax increases were voided.
Shlick is basically making the 'even if true" argument, which anyone who understands forensics (debate skills, not Quincy) knows is a surrender on the main point to win on a backup point. It's a defense in depth. I would be interest to know what Richard Vatz -- one of the preeminent professors on forensics at Towson University -- thinks on this.
If Irv Kramer had tried this, the Drive By Media would be all over him and his GOP clients.