Monday, February 16, 2009
A classic
John Moghtader filed a charge sheet using a classic set of charges that folks from the Summer of '06 will find somewhat nostalgic. That's right, it's the "Not enough justices" charge.
In two cases, he refers to advisory opinions which were issued when there were fewer than 9 justices. Not only would the Judicial Council almost never be able to function in its role as defined by the Constitution if they don't meet when there are fewer than 9 justices appointed, but since the cases were nonbinding advisory opinions, couldn't he simply refile charge sheets when the Judicial Council makeup was different?
In the other cases, Moghtader takes the position that a quorum is 5 justices, no matter how many justices actually exist. That's exactly the same argument the Student Action Slate made in '06.
The Judicial Council rejected the charge sheets, taking the position that a quorum is a majority of currently appointed justices.
Somehow, Moghtader argues that his due process rights were violated in cases in which he wasn't even a party. He also argues that equal protection requires that he get a Judicial Council with nine members just like everybody else does. (Pause for laughter) Notably, he doesn't actually name such cases, because they'd be pretty hard to find. I'm not sure there has been a single one in half a decade or so.
. . .
|
. . .
|
