Saturday, September 20, 2008

City Council - "Then don't do that"

City Councilmembers are making themselves look terribly foolish with their complaints about the circus atmosphere their own volunteer ordinance is causing.

Reminds me of the old "Doctor it hurts when I do this" joke . . .

Labels: , ,

18 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would this be like the circus atmosphere of the Mayor threatening to sue council members and leave them in a financial shambles??

"because he thinks the ordinance is unconstitutional"

Nobody seems to be able to explain why they think it is unconstitutional, other than the fact that they don't like it?

9/20/2008 3:15 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

He never made such a threat. Never.

I can explain why it's unconstitutional, on at least 5 grounds. See if you can figure them out on your own. It's pretty easy - at least 3 of them.

9/20/2008 3:20 PM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

Looks like Dan's right - straight from the Star - "Funkhouser said litigation is an option because he thinks the ordinance is unconstitutional. But he said he hopes it won’t come to that, and even if a lawsuit is filed, council members would not be sued as private citizens, so their personal finances would not be at risk."

Damned anonymous liars!

9/20/2008 4:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to Cathy Jolly, the Mayor threatened to sue the city council.

http://wap.myfoxdc.com/content.html?contentId=228589

Council member, Cathy Jolly fired back, "Mayor, you have threatened to sue us. You can't sue us every time you disagree with us."

9/20/2008 5:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What did you think of Beth's comments in the article?

9/20/2008 8:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how is that kitchen cabinent coming Dan?

9/20/2008 9:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't forget, Dan also said Funk would win the Cauthen lawsuit.

Dan was wrong about that one too.

Here are a few cases upholding the constitutionality of anti-nepotism laws:

"To the contrary, reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed." Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 386 , 98 S.Ct. at 681.

A rule that would prevent supervisory employees from having to exercise their discretionary power to hire, assign, promote, discipline or fire their relatives is rationally related to each of these practical, utilitarian goals. See Parsons v. County of Del Norte, 728 F.2d 1234, 1237 (9th Cir)

The case law is against you Dan.

9/20/2008 9:47 PM  
Anonymous ray ray said...

if its a circus, isnt Funk the ringleader? If so, he's not doing well in that position.

9/20/2008 10:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I can explain why it's unconstitutional, on at least 5 grounds."

Please do....

9/20/2008 10:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Looks like Dan's right"

Well, there's a first time for everything....

9/20/2008 10:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it odd that you as a progressive lawyer have been spending a lot of time defending your favorite politician on a stretch interpretation of the constitution, but yet have spent zero minutes defending someone who was clearly a victim of unwanted racial, sexual and prejudicial harassment?

Really, why sell your values for such an arrogant, do nothing jerk?

9/21/2008 1:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me clarify something.

I find it odd that you as a progressive lawyer have been spending a lot of time defending your favorite politician on a stretch interpretation of the constitution, but yet have spent zero minutes defending someone who was clearly a victim of unwanted racial, sexual and prejudicial harassment. Harassment that both the Mayor and his wife admitted to but have since retracted because of litigation.

Really, why sell your values for such an arrogant, do nothing jerk?

9/21/2008 1:04 AM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

I think Dan should explain exactly the 5 or how ever many reasons the volunteer ordinance is unconstitutional.

Because I don't think he can.

Dan, you and Phil Carderalla simply cannot.

You cannot demonstrate that the letter of the law bias' it's application to the mayor.

Prove it and stop talking in generalities.

9/21/2008 2:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funkhouser called the ordinance foolish. Dan complains about the foolish atmosphere.
These guys think they are smarter than he entire council and smarter than 1,000's of kc residents.
I think they need to take a hard look in the mirror. After this, a new leader will emerge from within the council and they will get stuff done with or without the mayor.

9/21/2008 6:53 AM  
Anonymous The Bad Painter said...

Mainstream, you had better watch out mentioning Phil Carderalla in that way. After all people around Phil have ended up dead in trunks.

So stay safe and focus on kicking Dan. There is not as much sport in it of for sure but the feeling is SO satisfying.

Dan you are a spastic-worm of a man.

9/21/2008 8:30 AM  
Anonymous inafunkaboutthefunk said...

It seems that Dante has signed off for the evening. May his idol chatter be forgotten so all of us can move on to the next issue.

9/21/2008 6:17 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

Well, Bad Painter, I wonder if Dan and Dale Youngs have mended their relationship since the Coffman-Kander race.

I expect they have.

Dale's helped Funk out on quite a few things as of late, and was his heart into the Coffman race? I wonder....

9/21/2008 8:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do you keep criticizing the Council, Dan?

9/23/2008 3:53 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home