< You can vote? Prove it! | Main | What would you do if you inherited $10 million from your father? >

Johnson vs. Johnson

Posted at 8:05 PM on March 15, 2006 by Bob Collins (7 Comments)

The free world is buzzing today about a column in the Pioneer Press (OK, I admit it, I've been getting the Pioneer Press free for two weeks, I love their Washington County coverage, and I didn't open today's Press...or yesterday's) from Craig Westover.

As near as I can figure from the audio posted on the Minnesota For Marriage Web site (and may I say for the record that I've been for my marriage for 23 years, 25 if you count the first date), Johnson says former Chief Justice Blatz told him the court isn't going to touch the issue because "we have to stand for election too."

His office released a statement saying...

"First and foremost, I have at no time ever received any promises or commitments regarding any potential judicial cases from any member of the state Supreme Court."

OK, well, that's clear as mud.

According to the Star Tribune, Blatz said:
"It would have been highly unethical for me as the chief justice to ... give assurances to anyone on how the court was likely to decide an issue that might come before it. It just never happened."

A spokesman for the Court is quoted as saying judges discussing cases that may come before them would be inappropriate. but would it under the new vision for running for judicial office in Minnesota? Political parties in the state seem anxious to be allowed to endorse judicial candidates. So... what do you suppose they might ask them in that process?

This particular issue, of course, has been described as putting the issue to a Senate floor vote. Actually, that's wrong. That's not the issue at all. The issue is getting the bill a hearing in the first place. Sen. Michele Bachmann tried -- and failed -- to get it out of a committee, where it had been sent to die. And during that debate, Sen. Don Betzold promised it would get a hearing. It didn't.

One of the things I find fascinating about this latest dust-up is the court justice's allegedly contending they wouldn't touch a challenge to the existing state law. Whether they would or not, of course, is what keeps bloggers in business because I don't believe there's presently a challenge in process. Why doesn't someone challenge it? Anyone? On either side. Just to see?

For all the quoting -- proper, I might add -- of Westover today, this last graph of his apparently went unnoticed.

Sooner or later, social issues devolve from noble intent to political food fights, and feeding the frenzy becomes more important than nourishing the debate. The marriage amendment is at that point. It's time to expose the exaggerated rhetoric on both sides of the issue in open debate on the Senate floor and bring the marriage amendment to a legislative vote.

Up until the last point, bingo! But if you believe the people should get a chance to have a say, then you really have to be for it first getting a ~~legislative~~ Senate hearing, where they could actually, you know, say something.

Comments (7)

Bob,

Being the liberal you are I am not suprised that you are giving Dean Johnson a pass on this issue.

Dean Johnson told a group of pastors that that he talked to a supreme court justice and that justice told him that they would not overturn the gay marriage law. The justice has since issued a statement saying the conversation never took place.

So that means that Dean Johnson is either lying about the conversation and is making up stories to tell this group of pastors; or he is talking to justices about possible cases that may come before the court and he is asking how the justices would vote.

Either way Dean Johnson looks bad and he need to be held accountable.

Again, Bob, I am not surprised that you are giving Johnson a pass on this issue because you are biased. Attack the GOP about thier CD, then let Johnson go on these serious ethic issues.

Posted by jonathan | March 15, 2006 9:41 PM

Hi Jonathan, thanks for writing. "Being the liberal I am." I'm not sure what that means. I've stopped voting precisely BECAUSE otherwise logical political discussions I wish to engage in get polluted by that red herring.

And I see no evidence that I've given Dean Johnson "a pass" on the issue. I think what I said, if you read it again, is his explanation so far is about as "clear as mud."

As for the Cd, see the thing is: I KNEW the facts in the CD story. I don't know all the facts in this story yet. Realizing that doesn't stop a lot of people from charging forward to reach a conclusion, I don't feel particularly obliged to run with that pack.

Johnson has more 'splaining to do, Lucy.

Posted by Bob Collins | March 15, 2006 10:31 PM

Bob,

jonathan is right--your liberal colors shine through. In any case, it is not a red herring to point this out, for one can still have logical discussions after doing so. If you can't, then maybe blogging isn't your calling.

Another example of your left leanings would be the blog on Katherine Harris inheriting $10 million. What the hell does that have to do with anything about polls or MN politics? My God man, her father just died. Talk about red herrings.

Posted by R. Johnson | March 16, 2006 8:11 AM

Ummm... I'm sorry you've miscontrued Polinaut. It never has limited itself to Minnesota politics. It never intended to. It said that from the start In fact it's not about Minnesota politics per se...it's about electoral politics. And not just here. Everywhere.

Sure, we coulda called it Campaigninaut or Electionaut, but it sounded too much like something from a Lucille Ball skit.

Lots of folks who disagree with what they read feel better if they can ascribe it to a liberal...or a conservative bias as the case may be. I do admit to having a bias. That much should be clued in the banner at the top of the page. I'm against ignorance. I'm lookig for signs of intelligent life in a world of political discourse. Name-calling as a substitute for intelligent dialog has never been my cup of tea.

Posted by Bob Collins | March 16, 2006 8:19 AM

Bob,

You are funny. To think that, once a person stops voting, they have no bias is hilarious � ignorant, but hilarious none the less.

The second thing that is so funny is that you admit that you don't have all the facts on this issue, but you blog about it anyway. That thought process must be from the Dan Rather School of Journalism.

As for the CD story, it is obvious from your postings that you didn't know all the facts, but you made assumptions. I thought journalists were not supposed to make assumptions, but I guess I am wrong.

I really wanted to participate in blogging on this site but now I am having second thoughts. I don't think that I want to engage in political banter with someone who doesn�t care enough about their country to vote.

By the way, what is with the Orwellian posting process around here?

Now you have some splaining to do, Bobbie.

Posted by jonathan | March 16, 2006 8:41 AM

// hilarious none the less

Tip your waitress and try the veal. ... nonetheless.

Posted by Bob Collins | March 16, 2006 8:48 AM

As far as exaggerations go, it's hard to top Katherine Kersten's doozy today in the Star Tribune. Westover tries too hard to find fault with both sides, methinks.

Posted by anonymous | March 16, 2006 12:53 PM

March 2006
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Master Archive

MPR News
Radio

Listen Now

On Air

Midday

Schedule

Shortcuts
Hourly Newscast
Hosts
Station Map

Other Radio Streams from MPR

Classical MPR
Radio Heartland

Services

Become a Sponsor

In The Spotlight

Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web.
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.