There have been plenty of mentions during the impeachment process of Gov. Mark Sanford about an impeachment in 1877. The year struck us as meaningful, since it was when the old guard of South Carolina retook the government from the Federal occupying forces and the “Radical Republicans.” Former Confederate Gen. Wade Hampton III was inaugurated as governor, and a push began to throw out everyone elected or appointed during Reconstruction.
One of those under the gun was S.C. Supreme Court Asst. Justice Jonathan Jasper Wright. He was originally from Pennsylvania, and arrived in the Palmetto State after the Civil War to set up schools for freed slaves. After a brief return to Pennsylvania, he came back and became one of the first blacks to be admitted to the South Carolina bar in 1868. That year, he was elected to the Senate, representing Beaufort, and two years later was elected by his fellow legislators to the Supreme Court.
The 1876 gubernatorial race, though, proved to hasten his downfall. The race between Hampton and former Union 2nd Lt. Daniel Chamberlain was beset by voter fraud and violence, much of it perpetrated by a paramilitary organization known as the Red Shirts. These men were former Confederate soldiers who took up arms to reassert the old ways. One of their typical activities was shooting into and disrupting election rallies of the blacks and few moderate whites who were supporting the Republican ticket.
The decision about the winner went to the Court, and Wright and fellow Justice A.J. Willard voted in favor of Hampton. A while after, Wright tried to reverse his opinion, but it was too late. That drew the ire of Democrats who had flooded into office, and rumors ran around town that he was a drunk and susceptible to bribery. The House put together a set of impeachment charges and that spelled the end of Wright’s term on the Court. He knew his days were numbered, so he resigned and went on to private practice until his death in 1885. Wright’s also known for setting up a law department at Claflin University after leaving office.
Our fourth-ever post on this fledgling attempt to counter the toadies of the political blogosphere involved the issues surrounding the fight on who is actually leading the Spartanburg County legislative delegation, a fight that had already been going on for a while. “Hit list” candidates like Sen. Lee Bright, Rep. Joey Millwood, Sen. Shane Martin and (in a turn, God only knows why) Sen. Glenn Reese tried to take over the group. We don’t have much respect for the intelligence of Bright or Millwood, who have to be the most ignorant people in the General Assembly, so we thought their power play would fall to the ground.
This is what we wrote on Jan. 10:
In another time, the ongoing dispute among members of the Spartanburg County legislative delegation might have been resolved via code duello. As it is, the battle between Sens. Lee Bright, Shane Martin, Glenn Reese, Rep. Joey Millwood and the rest of the delegation has been limited to the pages of The (Spartanburg) Herald-Journal.
So far, the main bone of contention has been who is really in control, and how that impacts local appointments made by the group. The break-off Group of Four insist that their votes count more, because of weighted voting based on district population.
Recent stories on the issue have made it look like there are 13 people with a copy of Robert’s Rules of Order in one hand and the S.C. Code in the other. It may, though, be just a little more interesting.
As Diddy would say, “It’s all about the judges, baby.”
Voting on judicial appointments, particularly on State Supreme Court Justice Don Beatty, has been an issue that generated more than a few attack mailers from independent groups in GOP legislative primaries and been a hot topic in the General Assembly.
Rep. Lanny Littlejohn, elected delegation chairman on Nov. 10 (though the Group of Four elected Millwood chairman on Nov. 25), expressed that the tiff between the legislators has nothing to do with who is chairman.
“I think the senators wanted to set some kind of precedent for weighted voting on all things. It’s all about electing judges, I think,” Littlejohn said.
As for importance, “trivial things, non-governmental functions, and things like electing a chairman do not fall into that category, as far as I’m concerned,” he continued.
Rep. Rita Allison, one of the other nine in the delegation, told Wolfe Reports, “I’m not going to comment on that.” But, responding to a remark by Martin about the nine being good ol’ boys, said in Jan. 4’s Herald-Journal, she said, “I guess I’m a good ol’ girl. They do have the weighted majority, and that’s not a problem with me. But nobody ran anything past me or asked me to sign off on anything.”
One of the more mystifying issues in the dispute is Reese’s status. Among the four, he is the only legislator that has experience, and the only Democrat. When asked about the row, he posited that the question should be asked to the other three.
“You probably need to talk to them — they are the ones who want to do it,” he said. “They are the ones that brought up the issue.”
Littlejohn, citing Reese’s 18 years in the General Assembly, said, “Sen. Reese should know better. He ought to be ashamed of himself. He is showing poor leadership. … I have no idea what the guy’s thinking. It’s the dumbest politics I’ve ever seen in my life.”
In Dec. 18’s Herald-Journal, Bright expected his group to come out the victor.
“We’ve got the weighted majority,” he said. “If they don’t want to work with the delegation and they want to have a rogue delegation, that’s their decision.”
Until the issue is resolved, which does not look any time soon, it’s still debatable who has “gone rogue.”
The fight made its way to the S.C. Supreme Court this week, and finally what we all knew would happen, did happen. The high court ruled unanimously for the group led by Littlejohn and Rep. Keith Kelly, which is good news to everyone that values — oh, what’s that word? Competence. Of course, Bright, true to form, did his own bit to show that his surname should be “Dim.”
Bright said in an e-mailed statement he was “disappointed although not surprised,” and called the opinion “flawed.”
Why, yes. A gentleman in the trucking business clearly knows more about law than five S.C. Supreme Court justices. Rep. Harold Mitchell, who really pushed the issue to the Court, hit back.
Mitchell said Bright’s comments reflect a “complete lack of respect” for the five justices. He said when Bright had his chance to make his case to the court in oral arguments in October, he didn’t bother to show up.
“If you’re going to start a fight, don’t pull a butter knife in a gunfight,” Mitchell said. “It’s time to stop playing these ridiculous games and start doing what’s best for Spartanburg County.”
Ever since Sens. Lee Bright, Shane Martin, Glenn Reese and Rep. Joey Millwood made their power play to take over the Spartanburg legislative delegation way back in the long, long ago based on weighted voting, there’s been a lot of jawing and back-and-forth. Rep. Harold Mitchell wanted the S.C. Supreme Court to make a ruling on the matter and settle it permanently, and he got his day in court on Wednesday.
Other delegation members — Mitchell, Reps. Derham Cole, Rita Allison, Mike Forrester, Keith Kelly, Lanny Littlejohn and Steve Parker — were represented before the justices and their case was made. Interestingly, Bright, Martin, Reese and Millwood chose to not have counsel at at the hearing.
“I wasn’t even concerned with being represented,” Martin said in The Herald-Journal. “Once I made an agreement with people in March to work out a compromise, it was over.”
Attorney Charlie Hodge, who is representing Mitchell specifically, said, “The chairman sets the agenda and calls the meetings. Those are internal, administrative functions, not governmental functions. … You have the opportunity to write an opinion that says a simple majority vote worked for 100 years, and there’s no reason it can’t work now.”
The S.C. Supreme Court ruled today to support reason, good sense and logic as it went unanimously, 5-0, against Gov. Mark Sanford and required him to accept the $700 million over two years in budget stabilization dollars allocated by the federal Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
According to the Court, Sanford exists in a ministerial role and does not have the authority to reject the funds since the General Assembly passed it, then overrode his veto. The irony is that this part of the decision lies in a separation of powers argument, something that the Governor’s big-time barristers tried to spin in his favor.
The duty to execute the Budget, as properly enacted by the General Assembly, is a ministerial duty of the Governor. He has no discretion concerning the appropriation of funds. The application for the SFS funds is a simple, definite duty arising under the conditions specified in the ARRA and leaves nothing to Governor Sanford’s discretion. It is a ministerial duty. Because the General Assembly, following Governor Sanford’s certification and request that the ARRA “funds be released,” included the SFS funds in the Budget and by virtue of its concurrent resolution, the clear intent is the State of South Carolina desires the SFS funds, and Governor Sanford must ask for the funds.
While we recognize and respect Governor Sanford’s sincerely held beliefs concerning the ARRA, those convictions do not alter the ministerial nature of the legal duty now before him. The decision on a request to mandamus the Governor is an extremely delicate one, which is undertaken with great reluctance and consciousness of its great gravity and importance. Blalock v. Johnston, 180 S.C. at 43, 185 S.E. at 52. However, when mandamus is warranted, “the judiciary cannot properly shrink from its duty.” Id. at 50, 180 S.E. at 55.
We hold under the circumstances presented that a writ of mandamus is warranted and issue a writ of mandamus to compel Governor Sanford to apply for the SFS funds and take all legal and necessary steps to effectuate the State’s receipt of the SFS funds for the purposes as set forth by Congress.
One of the interesting things about this case combo, which was previously unknown to WR, was that the husband of Columbia City Council member Belinda Gergel, Richard, helped represent the S.C. Education Association in a “friend of the court” capacity.
Regardless, it’s nice that things like facts and sense won the day, but the countdown starts now to the Sanford lackeys creating their own reality to attack the decision.
Put a big red nose on the Governor, because he’s been clowning out. Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Anderson sent two of the stimulus suits back to state courts, where they will be heard by the S.C. Supreme Court. Of course, that hasn’t stopped Gov. Mark Sanford from trying to move the goal posts, and doing what it takes to try to spin the story before he loses, again, trying to keep millions of dollars away from public education and law enforcement.
“I think even where the court case ends up underscores in essence good people trapped in a horrible system,” Sanford said in The Post and Courier. “We have in this case a Supreme Court that is picked by the General Assembly. They regularly lobby the General Assembly for funding and other things. You could have five Solomons, but at the end of the day if you had to go to another group to get funded and to give you the goal posts, if you will, for your playing field it would be a very, very tough spot in which to operate.”
OH NOES! You never knew our governor was such a whiny bastard, did you? He’s like that jackass in elementary school who, in the middle of a pick-up game of baseball or football, wants to change the rules because he’s losing. Seriously, normally you would think that parents would be proud of a kid who becomes governor, but when you act like a rich, spoiled kid like Sanford has, it’ll give you pause.
Can’t wait to see what he does at the S.C. Supreme Court today, as nearly everybody and their mom will be watching the live feed.
