State Supreme Court grants review of Goldmark v. McKenna

The Washington State Supreme Court announced today that it has granted review to Goldmark v. McKenna, Commissioner for Public Lands Peter Goldmark’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel Attorney General Rob McKenna fulfill his statutory duty to provide legal counsel.

“I am pleased that the Supreme Court has decided to take up my case with the Attorney General,” Goldmark said in an official statement. “It is a critical constitutional question of whether or not the Attorney General has the discretion to make policy for issues under the purview of another statewide elected official.”

This marks the second time in as many weeks that the Court has rejected McKenna’s claim of broad discretionary powers. Oral arguments are scheduled to be held November 18, the same day as those for Seattle v. McKenna, Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes’ petition seeking to compel McKenna to withdraw from the lawsuit challenging health care reform.

In granting review of the two related cases, and scheduling to hear them on the same day, the Washington State Supreme Court apparently believes the constitutional issues raised by the Attorney General’s unprecedented claim of extra-statutory powers are a pretty big deal… but so far our local media disagrees. Huh.

Comments

  1. 1

    Omak Steve spews:

    Speaking of Goldmark and lawsuits, David, what about that the suit filed by victims of the horrendous accident your favorite Public Lands Commish caused in Okanogan County? Strange how the local media hasn’t bothered to cover that much, heh?

  2. 4

    spews:

    Steve @1,

    Well, you’re definitely not from Omak, so how much are you being paid to drag up this bullshit here and elsewhere? (And yes, the accident was covered in the media. For example, here.)

    But you know, anything to distract from McKenna’s usurpation of executive power.

  3. 6

    proud leftist spews:

    This confrontation is really quite important. Yet, Goldy seems to be the only journalist in this state giving it any real attention. That is remarkable. Our Public Lands Commissioner sues our Attorney General, on top of the City of Seattle’s top attorney suing him as well–suing him that he just do his fucking job, yet we get a yawn from the MSM. If better proof of the wretched rightwing bias of the MSM be needed, I don’t know where it might come from.

  4. 7

    Contemplate this, on the Tree of Woe spews:

    MSM rightwing bias? huh?

    shit man, the MSM all but sucked obama’s dick during the last election, and you think they are right wing?

    maybe, just maybe(or actually probably) its just not a very important story.

    something tells me goldy would be mum if Mckenna was a D.

  5. 8

    Broadway Joe spews:

    Does Bobby Mac think he’s already Governor? At this rate he won’t even survive a primary challenge from Dino Lossi on his quest for the Golden Sombrero.

  6. 9

    notaboomer spews:

    freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose and nothing ain’t worth nothing but it’s free

    feeling good is easy lord when bobby sings the blues and feeling good is good enough for me, good enough for me and bobby mcfree

  7. 10

    Deathfrogg spews:

    @7

    Considering the alternatives, it would seem to me that a young, highly educated and physically healthy black man would certainly be the superior option for a good cock-sucking by the press.

    Versus a nasty, elderly, uneducated old alcoholic with a phonly resumee’ and a shrilling harpy with no brains whatsoever.

  8. 12

    Contemplate this, on the Tree of Woe spews:

    @10

    it would seem that you take you peter-puffing very seriously.

  9. 13

    rhp6033 spews:

    # 11: Well, by Supreme Court standards, that’s warp speed.

    First both sides have to file their briefs, and then both sides get to file their responses to the other side’s briefs. And I expect that there will be other parties asking to jump in as “friends of the court”, also filing their own briefs.

    At least they are accepting the case directly on the legal issues. If they really wanted to, they could have required it to go through the usual path (superior court, then court of appeals, then supreme court).

  10. 14

    rhp6033 spews:

    Of course, the Seattle Times will continue to ignore this until they are forced to do so. Politics aside, there are other reasons for them not to address this dispute, other than a nominal on-paragraph notice burried deep in the paper.

    For one thing, it takes a reasonably intelligent and literate writer and editor to explain this issue, and to explain why it matters.

    Secondly, it requires scarce printable space to be devoted to a topic which could better be used for important earth-shaking articles and editorials, like the use of cosmetic content lenses among teens.

  11. 15

    rhp6033 spews:

    What is important in this issue is the attorney general’s concept of unfettered authority to pretty much set state policy all on his own, and then enforce it through the court system.

    Over in Italy, the Italian prosecutor there is bringing criminal charges against the parents of Amanda Knox for making disparaging comments about his prosecution of their daughter. Bobby McKenna is probably taking notes – “Gee, you can DO that?????”