You thought we were done?

The expected charge sheet has materialized from the Palestinian half of the brawl, challenging the ability of the Senate to hold regular meetings before the recall election. It's filled with the "boo hoo we're victims if you believe in justice at all you'll side with us" whining we've come to expect from SJP, though that doesn't make the legal argument wrong.

It then goes into unsupported accusations that the reason folks are stalling the recall election is that they're opposed to the recall campaign. This need to lash out with accusations at anyone and everyone is why I have long since dismissed SJP as a legitimate contributor to any kind of discourse.

They try to write an exception into their request by allowing the Senate to hold meetings to set the election date. This is because, for some reason, they are claiming that the Judicial Council should not only prevent the Senate from holding regular meetings, but also prevent them from conducting official business. As far as I can tell, there's no basis for the second part of their request, aside from the argument that the Senate should not do very much until the recall election takes place. While there might be some validity to this argument in terms of policy, there's nothing in the Constitution which supports the claim.

They request an expedited hearing to take place before Wednesday, which makes sense, but they did not request a preliminary injunction, which surprised me.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 1/26/2009 11:08:00 PM #
Comments (3)

. . .

Comments:

does the judicial council have the authority to tell SJP to shut the hell up? as if they haven't caused enough ruckus, now that the ASUC is going through all of this BS to satisfy them and give them a recall election, they complain even more. if you want your election, give the people in charge a reasonable chance to set it up, even tho the whole recall is a sham and a waste of time and money. they're holding this whole campus hostage because of stupid petty politics...

# posted by  Anonymous : 12:06 AM, January 27, 2009

 

whats meghana dhars excuse? she was there when the investigating officer said that john attacked the three students on the balcony. why isn't she saying something about this? is she ok working with someone like that?

# posted by  Anonymous : 8:43 AM, January 27, 2009

 

Interestingly, there was more than one senator that witnessed the Eshleman brawl, and Senator Dhar was not one of them.

Isn't it funny that the senators that are so actively (but very cautious to not be publicly) pursuing this ridiculous waste of time and of everybody's money are not the same as the ones that actually saw what happened?

it just doesn't seem to fit...


oh and the "investigating officer" never "said that john attacked the three students on the balcony", especially "there" at Eshleman as you are implying. You better be careful with your words before they become slanderous and hurt someone-- oh wait, too late

# posted by  Anonymous : 2:57 AM, February 02, 2009

 

Post a Comment