The SQ lawsuits are starting.

[Conan71]

Great journalism:

"How much will that cost taxpayers?  It depends on how long the case is in litigation.  If it drags on for years with multiple appeals, experts think it could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

While a spokesperson for the AG says the agency would step in if asked, it would prefer if the legislature consulted Drew Edmondson before passing any controversial laws that could be challenged in court.

According to one expert, the burden is on those who filed the lawsuit to prove why they think the law is unconstitutional.  The governor has not yet asked the attorney general's office to step in.  But he's expected to do so soon."

Who are these experts?  Why doesn't Fox bother to name them?  For all we know, the reporter might be talking to a TNF poster.  Whole lotta ifs there. 

After all the other stupid legislation which has caused Constitutionality lawsuits in the past, why are we suddenly obsessed with this?

Let's look at it from another angle: If the AG office defends the suit using staff attornies, what are the real costs we could expect to see?  Making Xerox copies?  Operating a computer?  I mean really Townsend, what costs are there other than specifically assigning an hourly cost of people already on the state payroll?  I'm just not seeing the outrage with this.  There's far worse things coming in terms of defending lawsuits.

I'm far more concerned with potential future litigation awards in the TPD scandal from defendents in those cases.  The Arvin McGee verdict cost us $12.5mm alone.  Just wait until 20 to 30 lawsuits start chugging through the courts.  That's the kind of defense which really hurts.

[Townsend]

Great journalism:

It's a local station.  We can't expect much. 

I think the SQ's were crap so I'm beating the last breath out of the horse.

Even if it is all done in house, it's still logged hours wasted having to defend crap.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Maybe we can just pass one SQ that just says that Oklahoma dislikes minority religions, sexual preferences and races.  That way we just have 1 SQ and stop having to have 4 or 5 variations on every ballot.

[Conan71]

It's a local station.  We can't expect much. 

I think the SQ's were crap so I'm beating the last breath out of the horse.

Even if it is all done in house, it's still logged hours wasted having to defend crap.

But should we stifle Democracy because we are afraid of defending it in court?

Whether or not the view of those backing these questions is shared by you, they have a right to put these questions to a vote.  There have been questions I've felt were complete turds and others I've agreed 100% with.  If there are enough people wanting it on the ballot, it belongs there and we can and should expect challenges if they pass.

[Townsend]

But should we stifle Democracy because we are afraid of defending it in court?

Whether or not the view of those backing these questions is shared by you, they have a right to put these questions to a vote.  There have been questions I've felt were complete turds and others I've agreed 100% with.  If there are enough people wanting it on the ballot, it belongs there and we can and should expect challenges if they pass.

I agree.


Too bad the "look at me" politicians were able to shove these piles of fecal matter through.