Yesterday Judge Peter Michalski rejected the suit by six Alaskan legislators to shut down the Troopergate investigation and prevent investigator Steve Branchflower from releasing his report. Judge Michalski's 11-page opinion concludes:
It is legitimately within the scope of the legislature's investigatory power to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the termination (of) a public officer the legislature had previously confirmed.
Today the legislators, who are being represented by lawyers from the Texas-based far right-wing Liberty Legal Institute, filed an emergency appeal of Judge Michalski's ruling. As stated by Mudflats, "Boy the McCain-Palin campaign REALLY doesn’t want anyone to know the results of the Branchflower report."
As reported earlier by tln41, this afternoon an unidentified "individual justice" of the Supreme Court granted the motion. Precisely as requested by the McCain-Palin surrogates driving this suit, the court gave the appealing legislators until Monday to file a brief, and the appellees get just one day, until 4:30pm on Tuesday, to file a response brief. The court will hear oral argument on Wednesday, October 8, and presumably rule before Friday, when Branchflower is scheduled to issue his report.
This highly unusual speed may be a sign that the court is inclined to support Palin and shut down the investigation. Or, it could be just the view of the single justice who granted the motion. Obviously Branchflower's report will be virtually complete by the time the court rules, and I wonder, if the court somehow grants the appeal and suppresses this independent report, how long will it take for the report to get leaked anyway?
I did some quick reserach on the makeup of the Alaska Supreme Court. The Chief Justice is an experienced woman, Dana Fabe, who has been on the court since 1996, when appointed by Alaska's then-governor Steve Cowper, a Democrat. The only Palin-appointee on the court is Justice Daniel Winfree. According to his job application, he is a former president of the Alaska Bar Association and the Western States Bar Conference, a CLE lecturer in legal ethics, an experienced practitioner and arbitrator in Fairbanks, a graduate of the law school at UC-Berkely. He certainly seems well-qualified and not a political hack or old Wasilla friend of Palin.
As for the rest of the justices, Warren Matthews was appointed in 1977 by a Republican, Jay Hammond. Robert Eastaugh was appointed in 1994 by Walter Hickel, who was elected on the ticket of the Alaskan Independence Party but later became a Republican. Walter Carpeneti has been on the court since 1998, an appointee of Democrat Tony Knowles.
The emergency motion is almost humorous in comparing the legislative investigation (authorized by a Republican-majority legislature) as a McCarthy-type proceeding with the potential to "slander and sensationalize" without "any semblance of due process." The only stated factual basis for the claim is Sen. Hollis French's statement that the investigation could result in an "October surprise" that is "likely to be damaging to the Governor's administration."
Let's hope that the Supreme Court does the right thing and allows the Branchflower report to be released. Eman's diary noted that Murlene Wilkens, who had previously backed Palin, admitted under oath that she denied Trooper Wooten's previously approved worker's compensation insurance claim at the direct request of Sarah and Todd Palin. It seems that Branchflower has developed a lot of evidence of wrongdoing, even though Todd Palin and other key witnesses have defied subpoenaes and refused to testify.We also know that Palin's purported reason for firing Walt Monegan has been constantly changing.
Can any Alaskans shed any further light on the Supreme Court justices and how they are likely to react to the appeal? At least on paper, they seem like an experienced, independent group.
UPDATE: My initial reaction to this case was, why do six legislators have standing to pursue this case? If anyone would suffer any harm from the release of the report, let alone the requisite "irreparable harm," it would be Palin herself, not these guys.
The appelless made this point effectively in their opposition to the motion, but at least one justice for some reason didn't buy it:
An order issued the evening before (the release date of the report) would not shut down the investigation, which would be complete; its only possible effect could be to suppress the next day's release of the report that the Legislative Counsel has authorized for that day. The prospect that this Court would suppress a report ... solely on the unsupported assertions of the plaintiff legislators that it might possibly say something hurtful about somebody (Gov. Palin) who can presumably fight her own legal battles -- is utterly far-fetched.
Amen!
UPDATE 2 -- Andrew Halcro is confident that Judge Michalski's decision will be affirmed:
The Supreme Court only agreed to take this case due to public interest and establishing a precedent so the next time the lawmakers want to sue themselves they won't burden the court. What is the most absurd about this whole process of wasting time and money is the lawsuit was filed by some of the same Republican lawmakers like Fred Dyson who have long berated Alaskan judges for legislating from the bench. The Supreme Court will toss this out and then Branchflower will put his report out.
If the decision is affirmed and a critical report is released, the Supreme Court decision will innoculate the report from McCain-Palin spin that the report is the product of a partisan, illegal investigation.