The Kansas Supreme Court is legislating today

[Rage Against the McKee]

Yes, and it is also their job to make the laws - not the Supreme Court.

Well, they passed a law many years ago saying that education in the state must be reasonably funded. It is the job of the KSC to define "reasonably."

Minor point, the word was "suitable," not "reasonable," but regardless, the Court could, and should, have said "hmmm... the legislature already devotes over half it's budget to education, so we're staying out of this." Instead, the Court said "Yay - let's be legislators!" So now we get a fun little budgeting process each year. The legislature passes a budget. Lawsuits are then filed and the Supreme Court Super Unelected Legislators take a whole new crack at the budget. Yes, very efficient.

Maybe they just opened up the law books and compared what the legislature was requiring of schools while looking at the funds that the legislature was providing the schools with which to do that and decided that the amount of funding just wasn't suitable for those schools to meet those expectations. What does the percentage of the state budget allocated to schools have to do with anything? How is telling the legislature that they are in violation of state law saying "Yay - let's be legislators!"?

[Rage Against the McKee]

If you hate checks and balances and you would rather a single group of individuals just do whatever they feel like, just come out and say it.

I like the system of checks and balances we had. The KS Supreme Court decided to tip the scales and usurp legislative authority, but I don't really expect you to understand or agree with that.

So the legislators used to have the authority to break the law?

[CNS]

Yes, and it is also their job to make the laws - not the Supreme Court.

Well, they passed a law many years ago saying that education in the state must be reasonably funded. It is the job of the KSC to define "reasonably."

Minor point, the word was "suitable," not "reasonable," but regardless, the Court could, and should, have said "hmmm... the legislature already devotes over half it's budget to education, so we're staying out of this." Instead, the Court said "Yay - let's be legislators!" So now we get a fun little budgeting process each year. The legislature passes a budget. Lawsuits are then filed and the Supreme Court Super Unelected Legislators take a whole new crack at the budget. Yes, very efficient.

This would be equal to what you are taking issue with.  In fact, it may be worse.  It would be the KSC making a financial judgment rather than addressing the wording of the constitution.  Again, if the legislators don't like "going through a budget process each year"(which is also their job) they should move to amend the constitution or move to alter the structure and requirements of the state school system.

There are functions of govt in place to address this adequately.  The problem isn't the govt structure, it is politics.  In order for the legislature to address this adequately, they would have to do something that would keep them from ever getting elected at any level ever again.  If you want to blame someone, blame the cowards that choose their career over the function they are elected to serve.

[CNS]

If you hate checks and balances and you would rather a single group of individuals just do whatever they feel like, just come out and say it.

I like the system of checks and balances we had. The KS Supreme Court decided to tip the scales and usurp legislative authority, but I don't really expect you to understand or agree with that.

I assume your expectation is based on the fact that this isn't what is really happening, right?  Aren't you a lawyer? 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Yes, and it is also their job to make the laws - not the Supreme Court.

Well, they passed a law many years ago saying that education in the state must be reasonably funded. It is the job of the KSC to define "reasonably."

Minor point, the word was "suitable," not "reasonable," but regardless, the Court could, and should, have said "hmmm... the legislature already devotes over half it's budget to education, so we're staying out of this." Instead, the Court said "Yay - let's be legislators!" So now we get a fun little budgeting process each year. The legislature passes a budget. Lawsuits are then filed and the Supreme Court Super Unelected Legislators take a whole new crack at the budget. Yes, very efficient.

This would be equal to what you are taking issue with.  In fact, it may be worse.  It would be the KSC making a financial judgment rather than addressing the wording of the constitution.  Again, if the legislators don't like "going through a budget process each year"(which is also their job) they should move to amend the constitution or move to alter the structure and requirements of the state school system.

There are functions of govt in place to address this adequately.  The problem isn't the govt structure, it is politics.  In order for the legislature to address this adequately, they would have to do something that would keep them from ever getting elected at any level ever again.  If you want to blame someone, blame the cowards that choose their career over the function they are elected to serve.

This makes no sense.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

If you hate checks and balances and you would rather a single group of individuals just do whatever they feel like, just come out and say it.

I like the system of checks and balances we had. The KS Supreme Court decided to tip the scales and usurp legislative authority, but I don't really expect you to understand or agree with that.

I assume your expectation is based on the fact that this isn't what is really happening, right?  Aren't you a lawyer?

Neither does this.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

If you hate checks and balances and you would rather a single group of individuals just do whatever they feel like, just come out and say it.

I like the system of checks and balances we had. The KS Supreme Court decided to tip the scales and usurp legislative authority, but I don't really expect you to understand or agree with that.

So the legislators used to have the authority to break the law?

Neither does this.

[Panjandrum]

If you hate checks and balances and you would rather a single group of individuals just do whatever they feel like, just come out and say it.

I like the system of checks and balances we had. The KS Supreme Court decided to tip the scales and usurp legislative authority, but I don't really expect you to understand or agree with that.

So the legislators used to have the authority to break the law?

I like to take the stance that someone needs to be able to prevent Sam Brownback from burning it all down.  If it's the KSC, so be it.

[Rage Against the McKee]

K-S-U-Wildcats!, maybe the supreme court determining the legality of the actions of congress would make more sense to you if they wore red and blue robes to show which team they are on? That way you would know if your team is winning or losing.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Yes, and it is also their job to make the laws - not the Supreme Court.

Well, they passed a law many years ago saying that education in the state must be reasonably funded. It is the job of the KSC to define "reasonably."

Minor point, the word was "suitable," not "reasonable," but regardless, the Court could, and should, have said "hmmm... the legislature already devotes over half it's budget to education, so we're staying out of this." Instead, the Court said "Yay - let's be legislators!" So now we get a fun little budgeting process each year. The legislature passes a budget. Lawsuits are then filed and the Supreme Court Super Unelected Legislators take a whole new crack at the budget. Yes, very efficient.

Maybe they just opened up the law books and compared what the legislature was requiring of schools while looking at the funds that the legislature was providing the schools with which to do that and decided that the amount of funding just wasn't suitable for those schools to meet those expectations. What does the percentage of the state budget allocated to schools have to do with anything? How is telling the legislature that they are in violation of state law saying "Yay - let's be legislators!"?

Because rather than giving due deference to the legislative power to make budgets, the Supreme Court decided to be legislators and make policy about how much should be spent. Or rather, they said "well, we're not going to give you an exact figure - you're just not spending enough." This is not a situation where the legislature suspended all funding for education - it already devoted over half the freaking budget to it (now closer to 2/3rds).

This isn't matter of being a law - it's a matter of politics. Only a liberal lawyer (which I am assuredly not) would enjoy watching Supreme Court justices pretending to be legislators as they re-write the budget. It is an absurd process.

[CNS]

Yes, and it is also their job to make the laws - not the Supreme Court.

Well, they passed a law many years ago saying that education in the state must be reasonably funded. It is the job of the KSC to define "reasonably."

Minor point, the word was "suitable," not "reasonable," but regardless, the Court could, and should, have said "hmmm... the legislature already devotes over half it's budget to education, so we're staying out of this." Instead, the Court said "Yay - let's be legislators!" So now we get a fun little budgeting process each year. The legislature passes a budget. Lawsuits are then filed and the Supreme Court Super Unelected Legislators take a whole new crack at the budget. Yes, very efficient.

This would be equal to what you are taking issue with.  In fact, it may be worse.  It would be the KSC making a financial judgment rather than addressing the wording of the constitution.  Again, if the legislators don't like "going through a budget process each year"(which is also their job) they should move to amend the constitution or move to alter the structure and requirements of the state school system.

There are functions of govt in place to address this adequately.  The problem isn't the govt structure, it is politics.  In order for the legislature to address this adequately, they would have to do something that would keep them from ever getting elected at any level ever again.  If you want to blame someone, blame the cowards that choose their career over the function they are elected to serve.

This makes no sense.

Legislation is made up of a collection of words.  Those words have meaning(both independently as well as in groups).  The Supreme Court's job is to review said words and their meaning and interpret how we all(as citizens of the state) should be bound by those words/groups of words.  One of the words in the legislation in question is "suitable".  The dictionary defines that particular word as: "right or appropriate for a particular person, purpose, or situation."  So, if the funding isn't "right or appropriate for a particular person, purpose, or situation" as far as funding Education goes, then the legislation that set the funding amount is not constitutional. 

For those not grasping this process, please refer to elementary school civics.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

K-S-U-Wildcats!, maybe the supreme court determining the legality of the actions of congress would make more sense to you if they wore red and blue robes to show which team they are on? That way you would know if your team is winning or losing.

It is you and your liberal ilk who are taking a partisan stand on the issue. I just have respect for the separation of powers.

[CNS]

K-S-U-Wildcats!, maybe the supreme court determining the legality of the actions of congress would make more sense to you if they wore red and blue robes to show which team they are on? That way you would know if your team is winning or losing.

It is you and your liberal ilk who are taking a partisan stand on the issue. I just have respect for the separation of powers.

This makes no sense.

[Rage Against the McKee]

You just said that they didn't rewrite the budget. They just told the legislature that their budget was unlawful and to try again. The percentage of the budget devoted to education is completely irrelevant. It's a matter of standards and the cost of achieving those standards. If the budgeted amount doesn't meet or exceed that cost, then the budget is unlawful.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Yes, and it is also their job to make the laws - not the Supreme Court.

Well, they passed a law many years ago saying that education in the state must be reasonably funded. It is the job of the KSC to define "reasonably."

Minor point, the word was "suitable," not "reasonable," but regardless, the Court could, and should, have said "hmmm... the legislature already devotes over half it's budget to education, so we're staying out of this." Instead, the Court said "Yay - let's be legislators!" So now we get a fun little budgeting process each year. The legislature passes a budget. Lawsuits are then filed and the Supreme Court Super Unelected Legislators take a whole new crack at the budget. Yes, very efficient.

This would be equal to what you are taking issue with.  In fact, it may be worse.  It would be the KSC making a financial judgment rather than addressing the wording of the constitution.  Again, if the legislators don't like "going through a budget process each year"(which is also their job) they should move to amend the constitution or move to alter the structure and requirements of the state school system.

There are functions of govt in place to address this adequately.  The problem isn't the govt structure, it is politics.  In order for the legislature to address this adequately, they would have to do something that would keep them from ever getting elected at any level ever again.  If you want to blame someone, blame the cowards that choose their career over the function they are elected to serve.

This makes no sense.

Legislation is made up of a collection of words.  Those words have meaning(both independently as well as in groups).  The Supreme Court's job is to review said words and their meaning and interpret how we all(as citizens of the state) should be bound by those words/groups of words.  One of the words in the legislation in question is "suitable".  The dictionary defines that particular word as: "right or appropriate for a particular person, purpose, or situation."  So, if the funding isn't "right or appropriate for a particular person, purpose, or situation" as far as funding Education goes, then the legislation that set the funding amount is not constitutional. 

For those not grasping this process, please refer to elementary school civics.

You continue to ignore the point that, the word "suitable" or not, the Supreme Court had a choice to afford the legislature deference in crafting its budget, particularly when such a sizable chunk of the budget was already allocated to education. While the Supreme Court is re-writing the budget, will they next decree that taxes need to be increased, too, to pay for the larger outlays to education?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

JFC, I think I just fell into a nest full of libtardedness. I can't keep up with the posts.

[Rage Against the McKee]

You continue to ignore the point that, the word "suitable" or not, the Supreme Court had a choice to afford the legislature deference in crafting its budget, particularly when such a sizable chunk of the budget was already allocated to education. While the Supreme Court is re-writing the budget, will they next decree that taxes need to be increased, too, to pay for the larger outlays to education?

No, I expect they will just let the legislature figure out that they don't have enough money to fund their government all on their own.

[CNS]

JFC, I think I just fell into a nest full of libtardedness. I can't keep up with the posts.

You are the only one referencing party politics here.

I am simply addressing the fact that they didn't step outside what their designed function is.

By the way, I am all for decreasing the Education line item in the budget, but only if it is done by addressing curriculum(method and content), standards, teacher review process, as well as facilities in such a way that we end up with a plan that is a responsible and realistic one that, when fully funded, takes less money.

Doing less is just plain stupid.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

You continue to ignore the point that, the word "suitable" or not, the Supreme Court had a choice to afford the legislature deference in crafting its budget, particularly when such a sizable chunk of the budget was already allocated to education. While the Supreme Court is re-writing the budget, will they next decree that taxes need to be increased, too, to pay for the larger outlays to education?

No, I expect they will just let the legislature figure out that they don't have enough money to fund their government all on their own.

So... effectively the same thing. The court shouldn't be involved in the budget in the first place, but since they've taken it upon themselves, shouldn't they have to re-draft the whole thing? See, when the legislature crafts a budget, they have weigh the various expenditures and taxation to arrive at a (theoretically) balanced budget. Seems kind of lazy for the Court to just step in and say "we're exercising our Constitutional authority to tell you to spend more on this."

[Rage Against the McKee]

You continue to ignore the point that, the word "suitable" or not, the Supreme Court had a choice to afford the legislature deference in crafting its budget, particularly when such a sizable chunk of the budget was already allocated to education. While the Supreme Court is re-writing the budget, will they next decree that taxes need to be increased, too, to pay for the larger outlays to education?

No, I expect they will just let the legislature figure out that they don't have enough money to fund their government all on their own.

So... effectively the same thing. The court shouldn't be involved in the budget in the first place, but since they've taken it upon themselves, shouldn't they have to re-draft the whole thing? See, when the legislature crafts a budget, they have weigh the various expenditures and taxation to arrive at a (theoretically) balanced budget. Seems kind of lazy for the Court to just step in and say "we're exercising our Constitutional authority to tell you to spend more on this."

The only difference is, that rather than take on the responsibility of crafting an entire balanced

Yeah, that's how the government works. The legislature is getting checked. JFC.

[CNS]

Yeah, this is just getting Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) now.

[star seed 7]

Yeah, this is just getting Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) now.

because K-S-U is one of those "simple" kansas voters.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

You continue to ignore the point that, the word "suitable" or not, the Supreme Court had a choice to afford the legislature deference in crafting its budget, particularly when such a sizable chunk of the budget was already allocated to education. While the Supreme Court is re-writing the budget, will they next decree that taxes need to be increased, too, to pay for the larger outlays to education?

No, I expect they will just let the legislature figure out that they don't have enough money to fund their government all on their own.

So... effectively the same thing. The court shouldn't be involved in the budget in the first place, but since they've taken it upon themselves, shouldn't they have to re-draft the whole thing? See, when the legislature crafts a budget, they have weigh the various expenditures and taxation to arrive at a (theoretically) balanced budget. Seems kind of lazy for the Court to just step in and say "we're exercising our Constitutional authority to tell you to spend more on this."

The only difference is, that rather than take on the responsibility of crafting an entire balanced

Yeah, that's how the government works. The legislature is getting checked. JFC.

Yeah, it's just that simple - the supreme court is just checking the legislature! What's to stop the legislature from "checking" them right back?

[Rage Against the McKee]

You continue to ignore the point that, the word "suitable" or not, the Supreme Court had a choice to afford the legislature deference in crafting its budget, particularly when such a sizable chunk of the budget was already allocated to education. While the Supreme Court is re-writing the budget, will they next decree that taxes need to be increased, too, to pay for the larger outlays to education?

No, I expect they will just let the legislature figure out that they don't have enough money to fund their government all on their own.

So... effectively the same thing. The court shouldn't be involved in the budget in the first place, but since they've taken it upon themselves, shouldn't they have to re-draft the whole thing? See, when the legislature crafts a budget, they have weigh the various expenditures and taxation to arrive at a (theoretically) balanced budget. Seems kind of lazy for the Court to just step in and say "we're exercising our Constitutional authority to tell you to spend more on this."

The only difference is, that rather than take on the responsibility of crafting an entire balanced

Yeah, that's how the government works. The legislature is getting checked. JFC.

Yeah, it's just that simple - the supreme court is just checking the legislature! What's to stop the legislature from "checking" them right back?

They could just change the law. Why don't they do that if they want their school system to fail?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

You continue to ignore the point that, the word "suitable" or not, the Supreme Court had a choice to afford the legislature deference in crafting its budget, particularly when such a sizable chunk of the budget was already allocated to education. While the Supreme Court is re-writing the budget, will they next decree that taxes need to be increased, too, to pay for the larger outlays to education?

No, I expect they will just let the legislature figure out that they don't have enough money to fund their government all on their own.

So... effectively the same thing. The court shouldn't be involved in the budget in the first place, but since they've taken it upon themselves, shouldn't they have to re-draft the whole thing? See, when the legislature crafts a budget, they have weigh the various expenditures and taxation to arrive at a (theoretically) balanced budget. Seems kind of lazy for the Court to just step in and say "we're exercising our Constitutional authority to tell you to spend more on this."

The only difference is, that rather than take on the responsibility of crafting an entire balanced

Yeah, that's how the government works. The legislature is getting checked. JFC.

Yeah, it's just that simple - the supreme court is just checking the legislature! What's to stop the legislature from "checking" them right back?

They could just change the law. Why don't they do that if they want their school system to fail?

What a stupid talking point. We're already spending 2/3rds of the state budget on education, and you really think the "school system will fail" if they don't get more? There is questionable if any correlation between pumping more money into public schools and improved education. And when the money is spent, it often goes to beefing up administration and bureaucracy as opposed to adding actual teachers.

Anyway, this is a policy debate that should probably be left to the legislature and people who directly elect them, dontcha think? No, I guess you don't. We got some libs on the court you see, and they're providing an important "check" by doing a little legislating themselves!