. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Opinion posted

I've posted the advisory opinion in my case dealing with Freedom of Information here.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 4/09/2008 07:44:00 AM #
Comments (6)
. . .
"Undue"...I know it when I see it...
I am just shocked that anyone would claim that the Judicial Council is spineless and unable to enforce the rules of the ASUC. Shocked.

(No offense to you, of course, Mike)
what is the result of this...is the tabulation still weeks later?
Tabulation wouldn't have been changed even if I had won the case, and it takes place next Tuesday, I think. If I had won, we might have had results before that. We'll definitely have them afterwards.

Frankly, "I know it when I see it" would've been a more sensible explanation for the decision. As it reads now, it seems like the constitution prohibits "undue delay" but lets the governing apparatus determine how much delay is due at its discretion.

Next up: No one shall be denied due process... but whoever's in charge can determine how much process is really due.
I don't think the decision goes that far. If the Senate passed an unreasonable delay, that would obviously be undue, and the Council, under this decision, would strike it down. It's just up to them to take on a case-by-case basis what is and is not undue. Planned Parenthood v Casey, anyone?
But there isn't any discussion of reasonableness. It just says that the ASUC can determine what is "due delay" through policy decisions. I actually rose the reasonableness issue in my charge sheet, and they didn't feel it necessary to address it. Instead, it seems like they're willing to simply defer to the By-Laws in determining what delay is "due."
Post a Comment

. . .