Saturday, October 21, 2006
Jerry Brown and the Law
Ancient leftie Jerry Brown, mayor of Oakland, California, is running for Attorney General of that state. (It is hard to imagine he could be worse than the current one, Bill Lockyer). But there is a problem--California law, which says:
No person shall be eligible to the office of Attorney General unless he shall have been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his election or appointment to such office.
Jerry Brown, who was admitted to the bar in 1964, went on inactive status for a period of time and only became active again in May, 2003. The LA Times story covering the story (almost alone in the buggy whip media) admits that being inactive means that: An inactive member cannot appear before a court. So it would appear that within the last 5 years immediately preceding this election Mayor Brown could not have practiced before the California Supreme Court. The GOP is suing to throw him off the ballot (and get the GOP candidate, whoever it is, elected by default). [The Republican candidate is Chuck Poochigian--I'm not making that up].
Irwin Chemerinsky, the lefty 'smart guy' on Hugh Hewitt's radio show, (with whose legal analysis I have almost never agreed) said the most important factor is that Brown passed the bar and was admitted to practice. "I don't think his being on 'inactive status' should matter," Chemerinsky wrote in an e-mail. "He could easily have changed that just by paying his dues.
Yes, but he didn't. What Irwin also does not take into account are the words in the statute "period" and "immediately". If passing the bar and practicing in the distant past was enough to let you run, even if you quit being a lawyer for decades, then why would the statute specify that you must have been able to practice before the Supreme Court in the 5 year period immediately before the election?
Obviously the requirement of practice for 5 years immediately before election is to allow only a lawyer knowledable of the current law to become the chief lawyer of the executive of the state. I think Mayor Brown is in trouble.
Rick Hasen, a Loyola Law School professor, adds in the LAT story that the GOP should have brought Brown's inactive bar to running earlier than a few weeks before the election and so should be barred from bringing a suit for laches (an equitable concept that urges prompt action). Yeah, that'll do it. Laches and 10 pennies will get you a dime in a court of law deciding a legal, not an equitable, question as outlined above.
Of course, as Jay Tea pointed out here over at Wizbang, any law that makes it difficult for a Democrat to run is routinely ignored in Court while laws that hurt Republican candidates (and voters) are scrupulously enforced; so Jerry Brown shouldn't worry too much.
No person shall be eligible to the office of Attorney General unless he shall have been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his election or appointment to such office.
Jerry Brown, who was admitted to the bar in 1964, went on inactive status for a period of time and only became active again in May, 2003. The LA Times story covering the story (almost alone in the buggy whip media) admits that being inactive means that: An inactive member cannot appear before a court. So it would appear that within the last 5 years immediately preceding this election Mayor Brown could not have practiced before the California Supreme Court. The GOP is suing to throw him off the ballot (and get the GOP candidate, whoever it is, elected by default). [The Republican candidate is Chuck Poochigian--I'm not making that up].
Irwin Chemerinsky, the lefty 'smart guy' on Hugh Hewitt's radio show, (with whose legal analysis I have almost never agreed) said the most important factor is that Brown passed the bar and was admitted to practice. "I don't think his being on 'inactive status' should matter," Chemerinsky wrote in an e-mail. "He could easily have changed that just by paying his dues.
Yes, but he didn't. What Irwin also does not take into account are the words in the statute "period" and "immediately". If passing the bar and practicing in the distant past was enough to let you run, even if you quit being a lawyer for decades, then why would the statute specify that you must have been able to practice before the Supreme Court in the 5 year period immediately before the election?
Obviously the requirement of practice for 5 years immediately before election is to allow only a lawyer knowledable of the current law to become the chief lawyer of the executive of the state. I think Mayor Brown is in trouble.
Rick Hasen, a Loyola Law School professor, adds in the LAT story that the GOP should have brought Brown's inactive bar to running earlier than a few weeks before the election and so should be barred from bringing a suit for laches (an equitable concept that urges prompt action). Yeah, that'll do it. Laches and 10 pennies will get you a dime in a court of law deciding a legal, not an equitable, question as outlined above.
Of course, as Jay Tea pointed out here over at Wizbang, any law that makes it difficult for a Democrat to run is routinely ignored in Court while laws that hurt Republican candidates (and voters) are scrupulously enforced; so Jerry Brown shouldn't worry too much.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 11:03 AM 
