UPDATE: Looks as if the court will hear from lawmakers before that select committee meets, after all. Late today, AP reporter Sandra Chereb says, the court gave the Legislature only two more days. So March 20 it is.
Accusing Steven Brooks' lawyer of shoddy legal practices and claiming legislative lawyers are too busy with drafting deadlines, lawmakers have asked the Supreme Court to delay a hearing on whether they had the authority to ban the troubled assemblyman.
If granted, lawmakers likely would decide Brooks' fate before the court could rule. The Assembly is expected to receive an independent counsel's report on Brooks as soon as today and could hold a hearing next week and potentially expel him.
I'm sure the timing of today's filing is a coincidence.
In the brief, which I have attached here, the Legislature says because of Brooks' failure to meet a deadline to file court documents and because legislative lawyers are busy drafting bills, lawmakers need an extra nine days (until March 27) to prepare for a Supreme Court case. Brooks' lawyer filed a writ last week.
Legislative Cousnel Brenda Erdoes said not only does Brooks' filing lack "cogent legal argument and legal authority," he did not meet a deadline for filing an appendix to his brief. (It was filed today. It was due Wednesday.)
Erdoes also told the court she needs the extra time "because the resources of its legal staff are urgently and immediately needed to complete all bill drafting by this legislative session’s bill introduction deadlines of March 18 and March 25, 2013."
UPDATE: Looks as if the court will hear from lawmakers before that select committee meets, after all. Late today, AP reporter Sandra Chereb says, the court gave the Legislature only two more days. So March 20 it is.
Accusing Steven Brooks' lawyer of shoddy legal practices and claiming legislative lawyers are too busy with drafting deadlines, lawmakers have asked the Supreme Court to delay a hearing on whether they had the authority to ban the troubled assemblyman.
If granted, lawmakers likely would decide Brooks' fate before the court could rule. The Assembly is expected to receive an independent counsel's report on Brooks as soon as today and could hold a hearing next week and potentially expel him.
I'm sure the timing of today's filing is a coincidence.
In the brief, which I have attached here, the Legislature says because of Brooks' failure to meet a deadline to file court documents and because legislative lawyers are busy drafting bills, lawmakers need an extra nine days (until March 27) to prepare for a Supreme Court case. Brooks' lawyer filed a writ last week.
Legislative Cousnel Brenda Erdoes said not only does Brooks' filing lack "cogent legal argument and legal authority," he did not meet a deadline for filing an appendix to his brief. (It was filed today. It was due Wednesday.)
Erdoes also told the court she needs the extra time "because the resources of its legal staff are urgently and immediately needed to complete all bill drafting by this legislative session’s bill introduction deadlines of March 18 and March 25, 2013."
Comments: