General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Tues., May 15, 2012

Filed in National by on May 15, 2012

Since this promises to be the week that the Sheriff of Nuttingham is ordered to stand down, I have one question: What happens if he doesn’t?

Do Jeff Christopher and his followers strike you as the type of people who will simply accept their fate and go gently into that good night? I hope that they are, but I’m concerned that a dangerous standoff could well result. Anyway, we won’t have long to wait. The House overwhelmingly passed HB 325 on Thursday (here is the roll call), and it will likely pass the Senate and  head to the Governor either at the end of this week or next week. I hope that the Sheriff and his Posse Comatosis will obey the law they believe they are sworn to uphold. Otherwise, I’m not sure what will happen. Will State Police arrest the sheriff and his Merry Men for impersonating law enforcement officers? I really don’t know, and I hope we don’t have to find out.

The Senate barely, with only 11 yeas, passed legislation enabling the Governor’s Advisory Council on Manufactured Housing to certify whether or not owners of a manufactured home community have provided sufficient evidence to support rate increases above the Consumer Price Index For All Urban Consumers for the preceding year. I would like to provide you with the roll call, but this being the Senate…

Rep. Lumpy Carson’s road rage bill was tabled in the House after three amendments, plus an amendment to an amendment, were added to the bill. Whether he can ever get the bill in a form acceptable to a majority of the House remains to be seen. One can only hope not.

Here’s the entire session activity report for last Thursday. It’s getting to that time of the year when I issue my annual warning: Kids, beware of legislation introduced late in session that the average person cannot decipher. Lobbyists often earn their money by sneaking through special interest bills late in the year that otherwise would receive more scrutiny if introduced earlier. So, please carefully peruse the ‘Introduced Legislation’ portion of the activity report, and remember that many of these bills may not go through committee, but rather could be worked on the floor under ‘suspension of rules’. That way often lies corruption. Or, at least, legislation not in the public interest.

Speaking of showdowns, the Senate will consider two, count ’em, two bills creating the new offense of home invasion. I have already pointed out that there are something like 150 offenses that a suspect can be charged with for such an offense. That, of course, is not enough, especially in an election year, hence the political urgency in creating yet another offense to add to the litany of charges already available. Yet even that is not enough to soothe the feigned outrage of John Sigler and his Rethuglican Party. He argues that the House bill creating the offense does not go far enough, and somehow ‘coddles criminals’ (damn, I wish that, at least, these Rethugs could come up with a new turn of phrase or two), and argues that Sen. David Lawson’s allegedly even tougher bill should prevail. So, in Solomoronic fashion, the Senate has placed both bills on today’s agenda: SB 161(Lawson) and HB 277(Heffernan). Neither bill will have any impact on perpetrators, but partisans hope that they will have some political impact. Me? I’m just interested in the political machinations. Will the Senate pass both bills and punt it back to the House? Hey, you guys love to see me make bold and profoundly incorrect predictions, so I predict that only HB 277 passes, with a lot of D ‘not votings’ on SB 161. Check back tomorrow as I duck for cover…

The other Senate bill of note on today’s agenda is SB 206(Sorenson), which “requires school districts and charter schools to establish a policy on responding to Teen Dating Violence and Sexual Assault, including guidelines on mandatory reporting and confidentiality, a protocol for responding to incidents of Teen Dating Violence and Sexual Assault and training on the issue.”

Here is today’s Senate agenda.

While many of the items on the House agenda are holdovers from last Thursday, there are a couple of interesting newcomers. HB 309(Scott) seeks to keep personal information from networking sites private from public and non-public academic institutions. According to the bill’s sysnopsis, “It is acknowledged by the General Assembly that new technological advances in internet use and social networking require new approaches to protecting reasonable expectations of privacy in personal information.” Good bill, let’s see who disagrees with this basic premise.

SB 185(DeLuca) will no doubt reach the Governor’s desk by week’s end. I, for one, strongly support this lobbyist reform if, for no other reason, I’ll now be able to directly link the special interests to the bills they’re promoting. And I fully intend to do just that, as, I hope, will what passes for the media these days.

BTW, HB 289(Keeley), the payday loan bill,  is scheduled to be considered in tomorrow’s Senate Banking Committee. Here are the members:

Chair: Anthony J. DeLuca

Members: Patricia M. Blevins, Colin R. J. Bonini, George H. Bunting, Catherine L. Cloutier, Bethany A. Hall-Long, Harris B. McDowell.

While both DeLuca and Bonini are listed as sponsors, it is not, repeat, not, a slam dunk that this bill makes it out of committee. Far from it. If you see your Senator’s name here, and you support the bill, you know what to do.

So do I. Time to ‘powder my nose’  for my close-up on today’s Al Mascitti Show, 10 am to noon. We’ll discuss the ‘Art of the Deal’, the Sheriff of Nuttingham, big doings at the SEU, and much more.

Tags: , , , , ,

About the Author ()

Comments (17)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Valentine says:

    I know I am not going out on a limb here, when I predict that Sheriff Christopher will not stand down. He wants a Court challenge.

  2. John Manifold says:

    It was not popular in many quarters, when I argued in 2010 that turning Trooper Lawson into Senator Lawson would be disastrous, but it indeed appears that the Senate will for the next decade have an extremist where there was once someone who understood social services.

  3. Geezer says:

    JM: Is it OK to throw the baby out with the bathwater if the baby is really, really ugly?

  4. Christopher is, of course, entitled to his court challenge. However, once the bill kicks in,unless he gets an injunction, he would have to stand down from pretending to be a police officer until the challenge is heard.

  5. mediawatch says:

    El Som,
    You are assuming, of course, that he respects the legitimacy of the law. I wouldn’t count on it. He will insist that the state Constitution makes him a “conservator of the peace” and that the state Constitution trumps any law. I would not be surprised to see him ignore the law until the matter is resolved by the Delaware Supremes … and then he’ll say he will ignore the decision until the case goes before SCOTUS.

  6. No, I’m NOT assuming that he recognizes the legitimacy of the law. That’s what worries me.

  7. mediawatch says:

    Well, we’re in agreement that he does not recognize the legitimacy of the law. And since he doesn’t … I respectfully disagree with your belief that he would actually stand down pending the outcome of the appeal.

  8. Valentine says:

    I am sure you are right El Som, if Sheriff Christopher agrees with what one of his supporters wrote to the Cape Gazette:

    “Delaware’s first sheriff took office in 1669 and the office of sheriff was created more than a century before the founding of the United States. In fact, the office of the sheriff goes back to English common law and was originally known as shire-reeve.

    “The sheriff’s duties are the protection of the people as well as arresting wrongdoers, and he is the most powerful law enforcement officer in his county. He has the power to arrest any other law enforcement officer if they usurp their powers, including FBI, ATF, Secret Service, Homeland Security, etc.”

    The suggestion that the sheriff pre-existed the Constitution is troubling. Will Sheriff Christopher even respect the Delaware Supreme Court’s ruling?

  9. mediawatch says:

    Well, now that we’re going back to English common law, the next question to be asked is: Does Sheriff Christopher respect the Magna Carta?

  10. anon says:

    Sheriff Christopher cites the Magna Carta in his lawsuit as the birthing point of his authority.

    El S-the manufactured housing bill passed the Senate 11-9-1 absent. Karen Peterson voted against it on the basis that it would bring investment in parks to a screeching halt.

  11. Davy says:

    (1) This case will never go before the Supreme Court. This is a matter of state law. The Delaware Supreme Court will have the final word.

    (2) What happens if the Sheriff disobeys the Delaware Supreme Court? Under Article III, Section 13, the Governor can remove an officer, whether State or county, with a two-thirds vote of each house of the General Assembly. Most likely, the sheriff’s political opponents will abandon him if he ignores the Delaware Supreme Court. There is little appearance of impropriety to undermine the decision, as the Court is balance politically (officially) and geographically (unofficially). In all, the Delaware Supreme Court enjoys tremendous respect, both locally and nationally. I would expect a vote for removal.

    (3) There is nothing wrong with the Sheriff ignoring the the General Assembly’s law (if it is passed), as long as he has a plausible argument under the Constitution. It happens frequently, at the State and federal levels. Though the Governor could direct the State police to arrest the Sheriff. I look forward to a showdown a la George Wallace. It could be interesting. Hopefully no one would be hurt.

    (4) The Court has accepted that the Delaware constitution incorporates Delaware common-law as the law existed in 1776. This will be addressed in 1 sentence to 1 short paragraph by the Delaware Supreme Court. But, the General Assembly has the power to change that law. The Constitution did not elevate the common law to the constitutional level, except where stated or implied (e.g. trial by jury).

  12. anon says:

    HB 277, the Heffernan home invasion bill passed the Senate 16y/5n.

  13. So did SB 161, the Lawson home invasion bill, 21-0. The Senate also put an amendment on the Heffernan bill, so both bills go back to the House.

    I just love all these political machinations over meaningless bills. The only issue is who, if anyone, gets some sort of political advantage from all this posturing.

  14. mongo says:

    The thing is, Barney Fife has apparently stopped conducting traffic stops, arresting people, etc. Consequently, there is nothing to order him to stand down from. The lawsuit and the bill just address possible scenarios.
    If anyone is aware Barney conducting law enforcemnet activities, I will stand corrected.

  15. Mongo, Santa Maria!

  16. SussexWatcher says:

    What’s truly needed is for someone his deputies hauled in to file suit.

  17. JJ says:

    Real shock the Heffernan bill passed. Lesson here: you can ‘borrow ‘ an idea from a Senate R and get it done when you have the numbers !!

    The crime of home invasion, are you kidding ?? The real crime in Delaware is what the Sussex Family Court judge did to the female attorney. Punishment for that: $85,000 additional salary and a fully vested pension. the Moral: Become a judge and you can get away with a lot more in Delaware!