KS Supreme Court pukes up some stupid

So the Kansas Supreme Court’s foray into politics decision in the Gannon case is 80 pages. There’s no point in reading the entire thing, because surely you have better things to do with your time. And also, you’ve probably already guessed what it says, which is essentially: pay up, taxpayers. Also, legislators, the old formula – that big forever litigated train wreck – was awesome. (I guess it was awesome, because it guaranteed that the Kansas Supreme Court would have something to do.)

Anyway, over at Kansas Policy Institute, Mike O’Neal, has some thoughtful questions in light of the Court’s decision. You can read O’Neal’s thoughts here. Many of his questions are worth repeating:

• Given the provisions of Art. 2, Sec. 24 of the Kansas Constitution whereby the people have reserved the power of the purse exclusively to the legislative branch, how would the Court force passage of an appropriations bill?
• Given the fact that it would take a majority of House members and Senators to agree on a single form of the appropriations bill, how would the Court force an affirmative vote?
• In the event a majority of members of the House and/or the Senate determined, in good conscience, that he or she would be violating their oath of office or would be proceeding in a manner adverse to the will of the people or best interests of their district, how would the Court force an affirmative majority vote?
• Would the Court threaten contempt of court proceedings against any member refusing to vote in the affirmative, thereby substituting the will of the court for the will of the people’s elected representatives?
• • In the event of passage of legislation satisfactory to the Court, the bill would require assent by the Governor. Would the Court order the Governor to sign the bill? What if he vetoed the bill? Contempt proceedings?
• • Would the Court draft the proposed legislation, order passage and signature by the Governor, thereby assuming the role of both legislative and executive branches?
• What is the basis for closing all schools over a dispute representing something like 1.8% of the total school budget for K-12?
• What about the schools that are not involved in the equalization issue? Wouldn’t closing those schools be a violation of those students’ constitutional rights to a public education, as this Court insists they have? Could they sue the Supreme Court?
• In the absence of legislation by June 30, 2016 meeting with the Court’s satisfaction, how would the Court enforce school closures or prevent teachers and students from reporting? The Kansas National Guard is under the jurisdiction of the Executive branch.

Yes, the bozos who sit on the state Supreme Court, essentially nominated to the bench by unelected attorneys (puke), threatened closing schools in their opinion. The suggestion would be so utterly laughable, if it wasn’t an opinion authored by supposedly the wisest legal minds in the state. (Seriously, if their logic and reasoning is what passes for best and brightest in Kansas, we’re in deep, deep trouble. And no amount of public school funding is going to fix it!)

O’Neal asks, "Is this kind of threat the product of rational thought?" I know the answer to this one -- no, no it isn't.