home

Can Rick Scott Be Compelled To Greenlight Florida's HSR Project?

Orlando Sentinel:

The high-speed train between Orlando and Tampa got an unexpected one-week reprieve Friday, just hours after Gov. Rick Scott again rejected $2.4 billion in federal money for the project. The sudden shift may have been triggered by a possible lawsuit against Scott contending he has overstepped his authority by killing the train. The suit, which could be filed as soon as Monday, is expected to argue that a law passed by the Legislature during a special session in 2009 compels Scott to pursue the train. Two sources close to the situation said the suit likely would be filed with the state Supreme Court in Tallahassee. It was unclear who would sign on to it.

(Emphasis supplied.) Can the Florida Supreme Court compel Rick Scott to greenlight Florida's HSR project? Let's explore this issue on the flip.

Article V, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution provides that:

[The Supreme Court . . . m]ay issue writs of mandamus and quo warranto to state officers and state agencies.

A writ of mandamus is an order by a court compelling the government or its officials to take certain actions. An order of quo warranto is an order by a court requiring a government official to demonstrate to a court the basis of the power the official is purporting to exercise. Clearly then, the Florida constitution envisions the Supreme Court exercising power over the Governor and the Executive Branch in the exercise of its duties.

The issue in this matter appears to be whether Governor Scott is bound by the 2009 legislation passed by the Florida legislature (and signed by Governor Charlie Crist.) If it were my case, I would expand the argument to the issue of whether Scott is bound by the certification Crist submitted to the federal government to accept the stimulus funds in 2009.

The argument that Scott is bound by the actions of former Governor Crist appears to be on good ground. In the 1955 case Tappy v. State of Florida, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered that a judicial appointment by an Acting Governor could not be undone by the ascension of a successor Governor. The Tappy court stated that:

[T]he commission issued to Tappy by Acting Governor Johns became immediately effective. Tappy having theretofore duly qualified in accordance with the law[. . .] , the holder of the office of Governor, by whatever name, was without power to revoke the commission, but could only remove for cause where cause existed. 42 Am.Jur. 959, 960, 962, Public Officers, sections 104, 105, 110; 89 A.L.R. 135; 67 C.J.S., Officers, � 33, page 161. This is so far the reason that "as a fact which has existed cannot be made never to have existed, the appointment cannot be annihilated; and, consequently, if the officer is by law not removable at will * * * the rights he has acquired are protected by the law, and are not resumable by the [executive]." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 167, 2 L. Ed. 60.

What has been said above in respect to the limitation upon the right of an executive presently in office to withdraw an appointment is equally applicable to his successor, because the supreme executive power of the state, which is vested in the office of governor, is continuous and never ending. "It knows neither names nor persons. It began with the first Governor, has continued ever since, and will continue unbroken so long as the Constitution exists." While a successor to the office has the same power of removal as his predecessor, he has no greater power than that which would have been possessed by his predecessor had he remained in office. Barrett v. Duff, 114 Kan. 220, 217 P. 918. As the matter is stated in American Jurisprudence: "Officers in which the executive power of appointment is vested are generally regarded as continuous offices, the power of the successor with respect to matters arising in the previous administration being considered as exactly the same as that of his predecessor. It would seem then that an appointment to office which has become complete and irrevocable will continue so." 42 Am.Jur. 962, Public Officers, Section 110. See also People ex rel. Williams v. Reid, 11 Colo. 138, 17 P. 302, and State ex rel. Haight v. Love, 39 N.J.L. 14; Attorney General ex rel. Haight v. Love, 39 N.J.L. 476.

(Emphasis supplied.) If the Florida Supreme Court issues an order compelling Scott to take actions, or refrain from taking actions, that effectuate the actions of former Governor Crist and the Florida legislature with regard the the HSR project, that would not be the end of the story. In an apocryphal story, President Andrew Jackson is reputed to have said ""John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" The quote is supposed to have been in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia. But in fact the Worcester case required no specific action from the Jackson Administration, but rather, as the caption indicates, from the State of Georgia. Georgia in fact complied with the order.

Rick Scott however, appears to be mercurial, to put the matter kindly. I imagine bringing on a constitutional crisis in Florida would be right up his alley. Time will tell.

< Friday Night Open Thread | Citizens United And Political Solidarity Strikes >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Recall! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 09:24:48 AM EST
    It isn't exactly like he won the election by a landslide. He margin of victory in a red state was 62,000. That's hardly a mandate from the people.

    Even his own party is abandoning him:

     "Last week, the Senate, overwhelmingly controlled by his party, voted by a veto-proof majority to continue going after the money for the Central Florida rail project. Republican Sen. J.D. Alexander questioned whether Scott had the legal authority to do what he had done, and another Republican senator, David Simmons, vowed to lobby fellow legislators to overturn Scott's decision".

    There needs to be a mechanism in every state to allow for a recall when their elected officials decide that they don't have to account for their actions. A lot of damage can be done in 4 years.

    Maybe we can (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 27, 2011 at 08:38:11 AM EST
    expand this to the national level and see if we can replace Obama and his troops with people who want to drill for oil.

    After all, that would create high paying jobs and improve the economy with cheaper oil.

    Parent

    So You Agree That Scott Is Killing Jobs (none / 0) (#12)
    by john horse on Sun Feb 27, 2011 at 09:46:00 AM EST
    You know that the other side is in trouble when they start using the "you guys are doing the same thing" arguement. Yeah, our guy doesn't care about creating jobs but what about your guy.  This is the lowest level of defense for the inexcusable.    

    Its a way to divert and sidetrack the discussion from the topic (what Governor Scott is doint).

    But its good to hear from Jim, my poker playing friend.    

    Parent

    No, I didn't say that (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 27, 2011 at 12:11:43 PM EST
    Just a bit of sarcasm to show that the Demos, and too many Repubs are interested in nothing but buying votes while doing nothing to actually solve problems and improve the economy.

    The high speed train project is a waste of money that will cost more than it will return.

    The Guv has that figured out. Some of the Repubs still think that wasting money actually improves something.

    And you too, John. Nice to see another oldee around.

    Parent

    Try to be original, PPJ (none / 0) (#13)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Feb 27, 2011 at 09:46:27 AM EST
    and don't copy others in the future, please:

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's remarkably honest confession to National Journal's Major Garrett that "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president" got kicked around at length during Tuesday's White House briefing.

    Perhaps Obamie, as you used to call him at Tall Cotton, had it right:

    Before learning of McConnell's remarks, President Obama told the National Journal that "I think it's going to be important for Republicans to recognize that the American people aren't simply looking for them to stand on the sidelines; they're going to have to roll up their sleeves and get to work."

    McConnell's statement, that the "single most important thing" is not jobs, or even tax cuts, but defeating President Obama, indicates that no such realization is forthcoming. As they have demonstrated these past two years, the Republicans are even willing to obstruct their own ideas in order to deny the President any political victory, so what hope is there that an even more powerful Republican minority (or majority?) will deign to do anything for the next two years?


    Click or Mediate Me

    No charge for the education, PPJ.

    Parent

    Of course the Repubs want (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 27, 2011 at 12:18:22 PM EST
    to defeat Obama. How could you be surprised about that???????

    Of course my comment wasn't about the obvious, but about how the current problem is oil and that some of the Repubs think building unneeded and unwanted trains is a solution.

    Seeing as how the national debt has went up around $5 billion since the Demos took control of Congress and since the economy continues to tank I find it amazing that anyone would think spending more will help anything.

    BTW - Say hello to DA the next time you see him.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Playing the blame game (none / 0) (#17)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Feb 27, 2011 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    is what you have in common with the Republicans, PPJ, not that there's anything wrong with that.

    :-)

    Parent

    If you want to lead (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 27, 2011 at 02:06:48 PM EST
    then you have to accept the total package. Kudos when you win, catcalls when you lose.

    Spending money that we don't have on trains that we don't need while ignoring the oil crisis is a losing position. For Democrats and Repubs.

    Parent

    I doubt that you'll hear Obama (none / 0) (#20)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Feb 27, 2011 at 04:21:08 PM EST
    express surprise at the thought of 4.00 a gallon gas, like his predecessor  .

    Parent
    Of course not (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 27, 2011 at 09:13:06 PM EST
    he is for sky high energy prices.

    We all understand that.

    What he wants is $7.00 gas. He probably thinks that will get him re-elected.

    Parent

    Re:Assertion (none / 0) (#22)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun Feb 27, 2011 at 09:18:45 PM EST
    he is for sky high energy prices.

    And you have a link for your assertion, or is this just one of those things that are obvious, like the sun rising in the east?

    Thanks again for demonstrating what happens to ones' brain on Fox News.

    Any questions?

    Parent

    So does (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Madeline on Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 10:02:12 AM EST
    it mean, for instance, if Crist committed to a program that gave the State federal money for the Everglades project.  Would that also stand

    *Florida is not a RED sate. We are a tableau of warm and cool colors; light and bright red, deep blue and sky blue, some purple.  Of course, the Panhandle is Scarlet red. Hurts your eyes.

    Florida is an ungovernable state. Seriously. It's comparable to the UN collection of countries. Scott will probably show up in south Florida for fund raising only.

    This Is Sad (none / 0) (#1)
    by john horse on Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 09:17:17 AM EST
    I know that some people think that Scott Walker is the sorriest governor in the nation but my nominee for this award is Rick Scott.  Here is a governor that just turned down $2 billion.  

    And this is a governor who ran on a platform of creating jobs.  That $2 billion would have created alot of jobs in a state with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.  He turned down $2 billion that would have employed alot of construction workers.  The construction industry in Florida has been flat on its back during this recession.  I wonder how many unemployed workers who voted for Scott now have buyers remorse.  

    I'm glad that there is this lawsuit, but you shouldn't have to sue your governor in order for him to do the right thing.  He was elected to make things better, not worse.

    My brother in law (none / 0) (#4)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 10:28:04 AM EST
    Is working for a Florida construction company - here in New Mexico - because that is one of the few places they can find work to survive. Fewer and fewer of us are finding work to survive. With state budgets being cut by the Republicans, and no investment in the PEOPLE, there are going to be more and more people out of work. Where are the jobs? Why are Republicans' turning them down?

    Parent
    He's keeping up with the Joneses (none / 0) (#8)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 05:50:31 PM EST
    in this case, Christie in NJ.

    Parent
    Can the Florida Supreme Court compel Rick Scott? (none / 0) (#5)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 10:39:13 AM EST
    There are two basic issues. One, does he have a mandatory duty to accept the rail money? Two, does someone have the right to sue him with an actual injury from his not taking the money?

    I think EW has shown a plausible argument for the first question, but more research would bear that out. If Scott had any discretion at all, he is immune from suit for acts within his official duties.

    Who would be doing the suing and why?

    Too much blogging, too early (none / 0) (#6)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 10:40:22 AM EST
    Should be BTD, not EW.

    Sorry my friend.

    Parent

    Scott's administrative style (none / 0) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 01:11:40 PM EST
    seems to be intimidation and bullying.  A lawsuit is probably about the only way to get his attention.  

    The real problem (none / 0) (#9)
    by NYShooter on Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 06:16:20 PM EST
    This decision is emblematic of the mutation infecting the Republican Party.  It's not Conservative; it's not even Right Wing. It's like the numerous, ideological religious wars throughout history. The battler over something like the hi-speed train system cannot, and will not be fought by reason, logic, and/or facts. It's a battle between intellect, and illiteracy.

    The formation of this latest movement, "The Tea Party," was almost inevitable. Whether your philosophy draws you to The Right," or to "The Left," some sort of ability to think, and organize, empirical data is necessary for you to draw some conclusions. It seems to me that those drawn to The Tea Party folks simply are lacking these abilities. Unable to think and/or reason, they just want to feel good. Yelling and howling at imaginary scapegoats serves that purpose.  

    Most people have some education, and are also able to think. Some can do one and not the other. And then there are those poor souls who can't do either. So you have this plurality of citizens lacking both education and intellect and they become ripe lackeys for the political charlatans like the Koch brothers, Sarah Palin, et al.

    Of course, in this rapid information age, even lackeys don't want to be left out. So they follow whichever "Jim Jones" of the moment touches their "feel good" nerves. Global warming? Bah, it's a hoax. Government is too big! Cut everyone's taxes. Education? Phooey, a bunch of Communist Pinheads, with tenure, teaching immorality to our kids.

    Of all the problems our country has the one that has the greatest potential for irreversible harm is the decline of our educational system. Scott Walker, Rick Scott, and, of course, Sarah Palin, are living proof that I'm right.

    Agreed. but please consider (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 26, 2011 at 07:45:00 PM EST
    the following modification: "the mutation affecting the Republican Party.."" should read: "the mutation that has affected the Republican Party.."    It is, in effect, the Republican Tea Party.

    Parent
    Maybe he's counting on being (none / 0) (#14)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Feb 27, 2011 at 12:00:12 PM EST
    reversed so that he can have his political cake and eat it too.

    He would get jobs/money in his state and be able to "blame" the activist courts for forcing him to go against his "principles".

    Two really great articles, (none / 0) (#18)
    by NYShooter on Sun Feb 27, 2011 at 01:13:51 PM EST
    discussing the very issues we debate here day in and day out. Not that we don't know what we're talking about, we do, and some know very, very well. But Matt Stoller, excerpted at Naked Capitalism (Link), and Sarah Seltzerin, in an article at AlterNet (Link) say it in a way I can only dream about.

    Great writing.