Originally Posted by
pgwenthold
I'm trying to understand the Lt Gov's comments. They make absolutely no sense. At least, they show no indication that he has any clue about how the government works.
"The courts rule that the legislation is unconstitutional. So the governor should issue an executive decree."
Welcome to the world of a dictatorship. Or am I missing something?
My initial thought was, "He wants the Governor to pull a George Wallace?" Recall, Wallace later regretted his actions.
Did I miss comments buy the Lt. Governor of Iowa (Patty Judge)? The one who proposed the pig-ignorant notion of suspending the Court's decision via executive order was Bob Vander Plaats, who has said he wants to be the next governor and is trying to turn the issue into something upon which he can mount a campaign.
The Governor of the Iowa, Chet Culver, has said he is not going to do anything about the Supreme Court's decision. Thier is virtually no risk that he will try to "pull a Wallace" or otherwise defy the Court.
Some see Culver as vulnerable in the next election, and so it is no surprise that various wind-bags are trying to find a way to assert that the decision was somehow his "fault."
Culver's position (which is legally sound, unlike Vander Plaats's) is that it would be a waste of taxpayer money to try to oppose the decision by way of further court challenges or grandstanding stunts. Curiously, his opponents like to paint themselves as thrifty fiscal conservatives, and yet they seem to urge courses that will add to the citizens' tax bills ... unnecessarily.