Response and correction, with an observation

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

 

Note: The comment cited here was left on a post on my own blog, but since that post was cross-posted here and that cross-post has been updated because of the comment, this response post is being cross-posted too.

 

This week's "Coming Week" post on legislative committee activity brought forth a response, one that merits its own post.

The response to the original post -

Regarding your comments on the House Appropriations Committee agenda, nobody is being sued and most of SB1070 has been upheld. Factually, you are 0 for 2.

State Rep. John Kavanagh (Approps Chair)

The line relating to the SB1070 lawsuit that I used in the post -

- Appropriations, Wednesday 2 p.m., HHR1.  One item on the agenda: HB2366, appropriating funds for nativist legislators and former legislators who have been sued over their involvement in the infamous (and mostly overturned by court decisions) SB1070.

Well, both Rep. Kavanagh and I were in error here.

From KGUN9, written by Ina Ronquillo -

Republican leaders in the Arizona Legislature want taxpayers to pay for a legal fight against subpoenas seeking emails from nearly two dozen current and former lawmakers in a case stemming from a challenge to Arizona's anti-immigration law, SB1070.

That lawsuit, by the ACLU, doesn't actually name the current and former legislators. 

Instead, their records are being subpoenaed as part of the lawsuit over a law that they were heavily involved in enacting.

My phrasing was unclear at best, and plainly incorrect at worst, and will be updated.  I apologize for any misconceptions caused by my poor choice of words.

However, there was nothing unclear about Kavanagh's statement in his comment - "...nobody is being sued..."

There is also nothing correct about it.

As for the other part, about me stating that SB1070 has been "mostly overturned" and Kavanagh stating that "most of SB1070 has been upheld".

The US Supreme Court has struck down three significant provisions of the law while upholding a fourth major one.

We can quibble about the meaning of "most" in this context, so while I won't call out Kavanagh on this part of his statement, I'm still going to stand by the original text of mine.

Now, I'm not one given to quoting the Bible, but there is one passage that fits perfectly here.

From Matthew 7:3-5 (New International Version) -

³ “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? ⁴ How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? ⁵ You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.