Emmer's litigeousness is described in the online Strib reporting that the above photo included, June 22, 2010, by Pat Doyle; this link. Is there the mentality of a schoolyard bully at the top of this year's GOP ticket? Read the item. Decide for yourself.
Beyond any questions of pettiness or meanspiritedness, there is pure idiocy.
In a must read item, Eric Black at MinnPost wrote yesterday [this link] in part:
Emmer favors an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution that would block federal laws from taking effect in Minnesota unless the congressional enactment was accepted by the Minnesota Legislature and the governor. In fact, the application of a federal law would require an affirmative vote by a two-thirds supermajority of each house of the Minnesota Legislature, and a signature by the governor to take effect in Minnesota.
Yes. Really. As a legislator, Emmer was not the chief author but one of three leading co-sponsors of the proposed amendment. Read it for yourself. [this link, and, again it is a must-read story (including Black's linked items) ...]
[Under the Emmer Ammendment ...] [l]aws enacted by the Congress to apply to the whole country would not take effect in Minnesota unless they cleared that triple hurdle [a supermajority passage in both houses of the legislature and the governor's signing approval]. And let’s face it, given the current state of American politics, nothing with the least whiff of controversy is going to pass. One third of either house, or a governor by him/herself, could erect a symbolic fence that would prevent the latest laws from Washington from taking effect in Minnesota.
Presumably, if Minnesota could do this, other states could too. And the system of national laws would become a patchwork of laws that applied in some states but not others.
There is this problem with the idea, though. It is almost surely unconstitutional (federal unconstitutional). It’s hard to imagine that Emmer or the other sponsors think the U.S. Supreme Court would let it stand.
If I’m wrong about the constitutionality, it’s also pretty hard to see how the United States could continue to function as one nation, if each state was free to pick and choose which national laws they wanted to abide by. I know that Emmer favors a Minnesota opt-out from the provisions of the recent health care law. And it gives me a headache trying to picture the complications if some states were in and some were out. But that possibility pales compared with others that can easily be imagined. If this proposed new level of state nullification was adopted and Congress raised a federal tax, would it be up to each state to decide whether they felt like paying it or not? If Congress enacted a military draft, could those crazy peaceniks in Wisconsin decide it didn’t apply to their boys? Could southern states opt out of civil rights laws?
The amendment was introduced in the Legislature but isn't going anywhere for now. Still, Emmer is enthusiastic about its potential. [at that point Black refers readers to a pair of Strib weekend op-ed items; here and here, and read each for a full picture to form a judgment ,,,]
Emmer, by the way, is a law school graduate and a practicing attorney. In his own op-ed he said nothing about the possible constitutional problems with the amendment. I have asked for an interview to inquire about that and ask a few other questions not addressed in the piece and have been led to expect that I will hear from Emmer soon. I will surely pass along his answers.
Based on that, the man dishonors the federal flag behind him in the Strib's photo at the start of this post. Confederate flags represent those who would secede from the Union, for which our federal flag stands. And Tom, the Confederates, they won a battle or two but lost the war, recall that, and its practical and constitutional implications.
Tom, either straighten up or fly the "stars and bars" as appropriate for pressing initiation of secessionist feelings, (perhaps Huey did, but he was in Louisiana, not Minnesota).
If you are a secessionist, in whole or in part, then badge yourself correctly and don't wrap your stupidity in the wrong flag.
BOTTOM LINE: I think Tom Emmer is due for an Olberman worse person highlight; or even a Monty Python skit.
But as to his fitness for leading the state executive branch when his talent is for dwelling on rubbish and rabble rousing, isn't Minnesota above that approach?
AND isn't Minnesota nice different from the man's sort of litigation history? Deep pocketing the former office manager and her family, for what?
At best, if his position had merit, his litigeousness draws focus to his negligence in knowing how his office's money was being spent when it was being spent - so, how is that inability to track money and spending cause to put him at the head of the executive branch?
Come on, conservatives, answer that for me.
I see no cause whatsoever to take the man seriously but for the inability of some voters, too many, to discern obvious things about character and intelligence.