Justices to rule on stimulus funds
By Yvonne Wenger
COLUMBIA — Lowcountry schools could begin to feel a little budgetary relief as early as today if the state Supreme Court rules that Gov. Mark Sanford must step aside and let $700 million in federal stimulus funds flow into South Carolina.
Chief Justice Jean Toal told a packed courtroom Wednesday that the justices would weigh the arguments presented to them during a two-hour hearing that pitted education advocates against the two-term Republican governor.
The court is expected to make a ruling by Friday, but Toal's comments in court suggested Sanford would be on the losing end of the fight. The chief justice said the case was little more than a policy fight, one that Sanford lost when the Legislature overrode his veto striking the money from the state budget.
"He lost a legitimately engaged-in battle under the constitution of this state and the rest is purely ministerial, is it not?" Toal said.
The governor opposed the stimulus package from the start. He said he believes it will lead to inflation and saddle future generations with debt.
Congress intended for Sanford's role to be merely procedural in making an application to take the disputed $700 million portion of federal stimulus funds, according to Columbia lawyer Dick Harpootlian. He is a former state Democratic Party chairman and is representing two South Carolina students in one of three lawsuits over the stimulus feud.
The governor's counsel, Adam Charnes, a North Carolina-based lawyer who was executive editor of the Harvard Law Review while President Barack Obama served as the publication's president, said Sanford has the right and responsibility to use his discretion.
Sanford will not draw down the cash, which he argues is the only portion of the stimulus funds that he can control.
The Legislature tried to force Sanford to take the money last month. The governor then sued because he felt lawmakers were stomping all over the balance of power set forth in the state constitution. Education advocates filed two other suits to use the court to settle the dispute.
Sanford told the Legislature he would take the money if an equal amount of state dollars were used to pay down debt. He said that meant lawmakers needed to do a better job setting financial priorities.
Legislative leaders said that wasn't possible because the recession left the state so cash-strapped it would have a hard time operating public schools without the stimulus money. They also stressed that South Carolina taxpayers will be obligated to pay back the money even if the state never sees a dime of it.
The $700 million in stimulus money would be split evenly between the budget year that begins July 1 and the next one. The money is part of $2.8 billion designated for state government services, a total that could grow to $8 billion when factoring in all available tax breaks and grants.
Public schools, colleges and universities are to receive the bulk of the disputed funds, with less than 20 percent earmarked for law enforcement programs. Lowcountry school districts are awaiting the verdict.
Charnes, Sanford's lawyer, said in signing off on the cash, the governor would be agreeing to meet a number of federal demands. Taking the money is against his better judgment and to force him to do that would render the governor a robot set to follow the Legislature's direction, Charnes said.
Toal and the other justices tossed hard-nosed questions at Charnes, at the base of which was the governor's discretion. Toal said Sanford had exercised his discretion when he vetoed the budget and the Legislature overrode it. That action triggered an edict for Sanford to take the $700 million.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
Our State deperately needs to change the way we get our appelate judges including the SC Supreme Court. Right now they are appointed and reappointed by the General Assembly. If they are appointed by the General Assembly, they are likely to be beholden to them. So with this case, where is the legitimate "check" that the judiciary is supposed to have over the General Assembly? The answer is there isnt one.
They will rule in this case to uphold what the "good ole boys" across Gervais street want them to do.
We need to turn the responsibility of appointing judges over to the people of South Carolina through the electoral process. 37 other states recognize that having the Legislature appoint judges is wrong.
June 4, 2009 at 7:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...
So by saying that, do you agree that the picking of US supreme court judges should be done through the electoral process?
June 4, 2009 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PoliGadfly (anonymous) says...
I don't presume to speak for Mosinfan, but for my money, I think the U.S. Constitution sets out the process for U.S. Supreme Court Justices and that should be followed.
State trial court and appellate judges may be another story.
That said, though, the issue of whether to change the current selection process at the State level should be put to a vote.
In addition, S.C. voters should have the right of recall of legislative members who are co-opted by other members for purposes of the legislative body's interests rather than doing the constituents' bidding.
June 4, 2009 at 10:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...
I do agree with you both. But with the federal government working to remove the majority of powers that the constitution granted the states, I feel we need to push for more federal regulation also (let's see how they like the people regulating them).
June 4, 2009 at 10:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
issuetaker (anonymous) says...
It does seem that the States have failed to rein in the Feds and allowed them to usurp through either apathy, activism, or interpretation power not granted to them. The representatives who were to represent the interests of the states seem to have sold out for their own interests once elected or, as suggested above, are co-opted by the legislative body as a separate entity with their own agenda. They then sedate their home states and constitutencies with pork money which bribes those who should be their keepers into leaving them to their own devices unsupervised.
June 4, 2009 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
PoliGadfly, I would sign on to everything you said. The federal system for the Judiciary is set by the federal Constitution. At the state level, it should be up to the people of that state and therefore I would submit that the time has come for us to take that back from the General Assembly, the justices (especially at the appellate level) need to more closely answer to the people directly. My opinion...
June 4, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mosinfan (anonymous) says...
One of the answers lies in the need for the states to really reassert their Constitutional powers under the 10th Amendment and tell the federal government not to cross that line. The line being only those powers enumerated and ceded to the federal government by the US Constitution.
June 4, 2009 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
issuetaker (anonymous) says...
I'm afraid the states have already been bought or bribed by the Feds as demonstrated by the recent flap in the legislature over that stimulus money or even the change in the datamaster reading requirement to .08%. The really sad thing about that is that they use our own funds to do it!
It'll require a wholesale change in Columbia before what I think you correctly pose can be effectutated.
June 4, 2009 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chilldiesel83 (anonymous) says...
Debtors will always be slaves of the Debtees... Besides, as far as the education goes, throwing money at the schools is not going to do one damn thing except maybe freshen up some of the looks. If that is what we are going for, then by all means use that money. But to say that is going to be used to help make our children better prepared, well money doesn't do that... The amazing thing is that the only thing that can make our students and teachers better would not cost us one penny. All it takes is the simple notion of motivation and will power. I think that if more teachers cared about teaching their kids, more parents cared about what their kids are being taught, and students cared more about the classroom material instead of who is dating who or who has the newest flipflops then the education problem at some degree would significantly improve. You know what something like that would cost Americans, absolutely nothing... WOW!!!! Forgive me but this post does not apply to all teachers and parents and students, only the ones that would fall in the so-called categories. The money should be used to keep building and technology up to date, but to use the argument of Sanford trying to destroy the education system by refusing the money is ludacris. Why don't the SC Congress make up for the money elsewhere by cutting back some other aspects of the budget. My real question is what if Barack Obama did not exist and was never born. I assume we would be in this same situation as he has never impacted SC before now, so we would be right where we are. But if Obama didn't exist then neither would this big Stimulus Package, and thus I assume that the United States would have ceased to exist????..... in the year 2009 because every state has made the argument that they couldnt survive without the money. LOL Im just asking what we would do if the stimulus package idea had never been invented, and my guess is we would have been just fine. Which leads me to believe that no state needed the money and should send it all back.
June 4, 2009 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- S.C. losing port traffic to other states
- Water — 'The smell is gone'
- Cart gives Buddy new lease on life
- Out with old ...
- Schools plan to update visitor-security system
- Tough times have taught comedian's sister to love life
- GenPhar site 'red-tagged'
- Off campus
- Historic manor house used by Girl Scouts is among buildings that might be torn down to make way for future
- Man, 17, killed in motorcycle wreck
