Outside View: State Supreme Court justices preparing to ‘jump the shark’
This commentary from the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin does not necessarily reflect the view of The Spokesman-Review’s editorial board.
Will the state Supreme Court “jump the shark”?
That seems an odd question to be asking about a court, let alone the Washington state Supreme Court. Generally, that phrase is reserved for trivial matters such as plot twists in TV shows or movies when they have become so ridiculously over the top that they undermine the quality of the show or film.
Yet, the usage by Jason Mercier, director of the Washington Policy Institute’s Center for Government Reform (a think tank), is appropriate in the context.
Mercier’s thoughts are also insightful. The state Supreme Court is out of control.
Last Thursday, the justices ruled the Legislature is in contempt for its lack of progress on fully funding basic education as mandated by the state constitution. The justices withheld a decision on punishment, which they plan to impose when the 2015 session of the Legislature ends.
The chance of the Legislature fully funding education by that time is as likely as a human landing on Pluto next week. It’s been estimated $4 billion or more must be added to the two-year state budget.
The state doesn’t have that much extra cash. Lawmakers already added about $1 billion, which forced them to make difficult spending decisions in the last session.
But even if the state had spare cash galore, it’s the Legislature – not the Supreme Court – that decides how it is spent. State government (like the federal government) is supposed to maintain a separation of power between the three branches of government: judicial, legislative and executive.
Chief Justice Barbara Madsen said the high court was not impressed by the state’s explanation for the lack of progress toward paying all the costs of basic education. That’s a legitimate response. And, as a result of its displeasure, the court can make a ruling on whether the Legislature’s actions – or inaction, as in this case – are constitutional.
But the specifics of achieving constitutional compliance can be established only by the Legislature.
Mercier noted in his thoughts on the justices’ contempt ruling that it could be paving the way for future overzealous contempt rulings. What if, for example, the Legislature were to impose taxes to raise the billions needed to meet the court order on education only to have the voters repeal those taxes through the initiative process? Would the voters be in contempt of court?
It’s a valid question.
The Supreme Court has already gone too far and is poised to go much further – past the point of absurdity. The justices are indeed preparing to jump the shark.