What are your thoughts on the Oregon Supreme Court granting Gov. Kate Brown's emergency motion for a stay as it considers the state's petition to throw out Baker County judges ruling to throw out governor Browns emergency coronavirus orders?

Recently, the Oregon Supreme Court granted Governor Kate Brown's emergency motion to grant a stay while they consider the state's petition to overturn the ruling of Baker County judges. This decision not only highlights a significant oversight within the judiciary but also underscores the broader problems found in legislative and executive branches of government.

This situation exposes the critical issue of power imbalance, particularly with regards to the executive branch's overreach. The current system often lacks adequate checks and balances, leading to unchecked executive power. If the executive branch is to be effectively checked, there must be a more stringent process of legislative approval or judicial confirmation for significant executive actions.

Proposed Reforms to Judicial and Legislative Checks

To address these issues, a comprehensive reform is necessary. Supreme court justices—both state and federal—ought to be appointed by the executive branch with the confirmation of a supermajority in the senate or, in unicameral bodies, the entire congress. This would ensure that the judiciary remains impartial but also accountable to the broader legislative body.

Implications for Oregon's Current Situation

The current situation in Oregon is indicative of the broader problems within the legal framework. While Oregonians would benefit from an emergency vote by the legislature, the slow process allows the governor to exploit the current dilemma. Given the governor's actions, she has clearly overstepped her boundaries in the name of an "emergency," disregarding the law in favor of personal and potentially political gain.

The current scenario can be summarized as a 'hurry up and wait' situation. While citizens will have to wait to see the outcome, the underlying issue remains that the governor's actions are not being properly checked. The governor has shown a willingness to override the law for her own ends, which is a far cry from the role of a true leader.

This event reflects a broader trend where leaders may bend or break laws when it suits them, turning a blind eye to the rule of law for personal gain. The governor's actions are not only unconstitutional but also undermine the trust and respect necessary for effective governance. The Supreme Court's decision to uphold her actions, as expected, will not only fail to address the underlying issues but also contribute to a culture of unaccountability.

Conclusion

While the governor's actions are concerning, the broader implications for the state of Oregon and the judiciary are even more profound. This case is a clear example of how a lack of checks and balances can lead to the overreach of executive power. Only by fostering a system that thoroughly checks the power of the executive branch can we ensure that laws are respected and that democratic values remain intact.

References

For further reading on this topic, consider the following articles and resources:

“Oregon Governor’s Actions Prompt Calls for Legislative Checks” - The Oregonian “Consolidated Governance: Addressing the Overreach of the Executive Branch” - Harvard Law Review “Supreme Court Decision on Governor’s Emergency Orders: A Critical Analysis” - NYU Law Review