Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg is about to learn who wears the pants in Pierre. When his foolhardy Senate Bill 19 came up for its long-awaited committee hearing today, Governor Kristi Noem sent her people to Senate Judiciary to second the contentions of the ACLU and this liberal blog that repealing presumptive probation is a really bad idea:
She sent staff from the state Department of Corrections and the state Bureau of Finance and Management to the hearing to speak against Senate Bill 19.
They said daily costs for serving 500-plus more inmates would total $8.7 million more per year, and additional space to house them would cost more than $30 million to build [Bob Mercer, “Repealing Presumptive Probation Divides Governor, Attorney General,” KELO-TV, 2019.02.19].
$30 million in new construction costs and $8.7 million in new ongoing annual costs? We’re done here, right?
Joining the Noem Administration in trashing Ravnsborg’s plan were the American Civil Liberties Union, the Koch Brothers’ South Dakota branch of Americans for Prosperity, the criminal defense lawyers’ and trial lawyers’ associations, the social workers, and some other good people who recognize bad policy offered as a tough-guy campaign slogan when they see it.
Ravnsborg rallied some of the cops who endorsed his underqualified candidacy to testify for SB 19. Those cops complied, hoping as they likely did when they endorsed the least qualified candidate on the ballot that doing jason a favor would win them sway with a milquetoast A.G. Today’s Executive Branch turnout against SB 19 suggests Ravnsborg isn’t even milquetoast, just toast.
Senate Judiciary was so overwhelmed by all the testimony on Ravnsborg’s expensive plan that they had to defer their vote until their Thursday meeting.
So you’re saying that Mr. Nelson’s little buddy can’t usher that bill out of the committee he chairs? I wouldn’t be so presumptive just yet, Mr. H. But I bet it dies like a gut-shot spaniel on the floors of the legislatures, but not without some fun speechifying.
“Today’s Executive Branch turnout against SB 19 suggests Ravnsborg isn’t even milquetoast, just toast.”
Hahahahaha! Well done Cory. 😊
The little pot-gut ugly jerk couldn’t even articulate his position on SDPR today.
CIRD, ☺
It was just an election ploy. Get tuff on crime pablum. Jason likely believed it though. Who knows with unqualified dolts….
There should be mandatory hard labor probation, not jail for low level felons.
I also think it is against the Constitution to take their gun rights away.
Ravnsborg once again proves he is the most unqualified person ever elected attorney general in South Dakota, probably in the running for most unqualified attorney general in the history of the republic.
Republican Donald Trump elected by deplorable as most unqualified president….
Republican Attorney General Jeff Sessions confirmed by Republican legislators as most unqualified attorney general….
Republican Judge Brett Kavanaugh selected by Leonard Leo Federalist Society, consented to by Republican Senate as most unqualified SCOTUS justice ….
Governor Kristi Noem sent her people to Senate Judiciary to second the contentions of the ACLU and this liberal blog that repealing presumptive probation is a really bad idea:
There is no way Madame Noem came to this conclusion on her own.
There is no way a dumb governor is going to say the dumb attorney general is dumb —well, Trump called Sessions dumb but THAT AG was not elected, so Kristi very deftly blamed Ravnsborg’s stupid Republican political election ploy (remember real lawyers were in the Republican AG primary and lost…bigley as Cory is wont to write). She explained after SDPB’s Laurie Walsh introduced Helene Duhamel as Helen, twice, that she (dah gov) understood Jason’s macho anti-probation stance, but FISCALLY, the state cannot stand the heat. Saved Jason’s face and they both looked good—to Republicans. Wow. That’s governing!
CIRD, one must have a position before one can articulate it.
I think I get the strategy: Republicans nominated Ravnsborg so Noem wouldn’t look like the dumbest executive in Pierre.
Oh, what the heck, I’ll bite: Jason, the Fifth Amendment says we may deprive criminals of life, liberty, and property through due process. If we can take away life, we can take away First, Second, and other Amendmental rights.
Or, if we can make them work on the chain gang, we can deny them their guns while they work.
Cory,
I would argue that a “right” is not property so the gun used or possessed in a crime may be taken, but the right to buy one cannot be taken away.
Same with the First amendment.
Obviously, life can be taken.
Jason, your posts remind me of my frequent flatulence problem.
Now Jason’s just lost. In the philosophy the Founders were reading, life, liberty, and property were the three terms used to refer to the most basic rights. Nothing enumerated in the Bill of Rights is supreme to those three. All enumerated rights derive from those fundamental rights. When the Fifth Amendment says those three things may be deprived through due process, they are saying any right, including those enumerated beneath them, may be taken away.
LRC updates and does more conservative math than Noem’s people: LRC’s fiscal note says Jason Ravnsborg’s Trumpy sloganeering would cost the state $53.8 million over ten years, money for which Ravnsborg has proposed no revenue source.
Now recall that, a couple weeks ago, Senate State Affairs said we can’t do Senate Bill 157 (the Legislative version of my People Power Petition) because it would cost $35,000 every two years.
SB 19 would cost the state 330 times as much over a decade.
SB 19 is toast.
Jason Ravnsborg will cost this state more than socialist Cory Heidelberger.
…yet Senate Judiciary, including supposed budget hawks Stace Nelson, Lynne DiSanto, and Lance Russell, voted this morning to advance SB 19 5–2.
There’s nothing good about SB 19. It’s not good for crime prevention, not good for rehabilitation, not good for citizens’ safety, not good for state economy.
Why pass it out of committee then? Politics only, certainly not for good governance. Typical SDGOP. If it gets to her desk, will Noem have the ovaries to veto it?
Neither the 5th nor any other amendment grants the power of depriving anyone of a right, due process or not. Rights are unalienable, endowed by our creator(s).
How about the 13th Amendment Mr. Hill?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiii
That seems to grant governments the power to enslave anyone convicted of a crime, which could adversely affect a few “rights,” including whatever rights the 2nd Amendment purports to protect.
Sorry, Mr. Hill, your comment reflects a high-sounding absolutism that does not stand up to analysis or practice. All rights exist in compromise. No one has an absolute right to life, liberty, or property. We authorize soldiers, police, and civilians to use deadly force in defense of themselves, other members of the public, and the nation. We don’t let prisoners carry guns. We require people to get permits to build houses and to follow code as they build.
Specifically to AG Ravnsborg’s ridiculous, costly, and now defeated campaign slogan SB 19, the debate was never about whether we can take rights away by due process. The debate was about the degree to which we take rights from convicted Class 5 and Class 6 felons. No one in the debate was contending the radical and impractical Jasonism that probation and imprisonment wrongly deny felons certain absolute rights.