Johnson vs. Johnson
The free world is buzzing today about a column in the Pioneer Press (OK, I admit it, I've been getting the Pioneer Press free for two weeks, I love their Washington County coverage, and I didn't open today's Press...or yesterday's) from Craig Westover.
As near as I can figure from the audio posted on the Minnesota For Marriage Web site (and may I say for the record that I've been for my marriage for 23 years, 25 if you count the first date), Johnson says former Chief Justice Blatz told him the court isn't going to touch the issue because "we have to stand for election too."
His office released a statement saying...
Create a More Connected Minnesota
MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.
"First and foremost, I have at no time ever received any promises or commitments regarding any potential judicial cases from any member of the state Supreme Court."
OK, well, that's clear as mud.
According to the Star Tribune, Blatz said:
"It would have been highly unethical for me as the chief justice to ... give assurances to anyone on how the court was likely to decide an issue that might come before it. It just never happened."
A spokesman for the Court is quoted as saying judges discussing cases that may come before them would be inappropriate. but would it under the new vision for running for judicial office in Minnesota? Political parties in the state seem anxious to be allowed to endorse judicial candidates. So... what do you suppose they might ask them in that process?
This particular issue, of course, has been described as putting the issue to a Senate floor vote. Actually, that's wrong. That's not the issue at all. The issue is getting the bill a hearing in the first place. Sen. Michele Bachmann tried -- and failed -- to get it out of a committee, where it had been sent to die. And during that debate, Sen. Don Betzold promised it would get a hearing. It didn't.
One of the things I find fascinating about this latest dust-up is the court justice's allegedly contending they wouldn't touch a challenge to the existing state law. Whether they would or not, of course, is what keeps bloggers in business because I don't believe there's presently a challenge in process. Why doesn't someone challenge it? Anyone? On either side. Just to see?
For all the quoting -- proper, I might add -- of Westover today, this last graph of his apparently went unnoticed.
Sooner or later, social issues devolve from noble intent to political food fights, and feeding the frenzy becomes more important than nourishing the debate. The marriage amendment is at that point. It's time to expose the exaggerated rhetoric on both sides of the issue in open debate on the Senate floor and bring the marriage amendment to a legislative vote.
Up until the last point, bingo! But if you believe the people should get a chance to have a say, then you really have to be for it first getting a
legislative
Senate hearing, where they could actually, you know, say something.