The Corrupt Nevada Supreme Court Denies the People the Right to Vote

Michael Douglas Nancy M. Saitta Nancy A. Becker

SHAME ON THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT!

The Corrupt Nevada Supreme Court Denies the People the Right to Vote!

On Friday, September 8, 2006 the Nevada Supreme Court voted unanimously to keep TASC (Tax and Spending Control for Nevada) off the November ballot. Joel Hansen, Attorney for TASC, called the small discrepancy in dates in the petition on which the decision was based a typographical error--a technicality. The District Court had agreed with Hansen, siding in favor of allowing TASC on the ballot for the people to vote. State Senator Bob Beers TASC’s chief backer said of the Supreme Court’s decision to take TASC off the ballot, "It’s a political decision."

TASC had gathered more than 156,000 signatures to be placed on the ballot. TASC would have limited tax increases and government spending to increases in inflation and growth. The insatiable appetite of government for our money will leave us slaves in our own country.

According to Readers Digest 50-60% of the average family’s income goes to federal, state, and local taxes-- many of them hidden. A family pays more in taxes than they pay in housing, food, clothing, transportation, health care, and education.

The TASC decision is the second in a series of decisions by the Nevada Supreme Court flaunting the will of the people. In the 2003 case, Guinn vs Legislature, Governor Guinn seeking the largest tax increase in history took the Nevada Legislature to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Court sided with the Governor under suspicion of collusion, forcing the gargantuan increase in taxes through the Nevada Legislature. It was so unneeded that in 2005 Guinn got a "rebate" passed using the DMV registration.

Amazingly: Supreme Court Overturns Guinn v Legislature!

What was most astounding about the Supreme Court’s outrageous decision on TASC was the flip-flop they did on Guinn v Legislature. The Court in Guinn v Legislature ruled that a "substantive" requirement (school funding) overruled a "procedural" requirement (2/3 vote of Legislature to pass a tax). Guinn v Legislature was an outrageous decision and flew in the face of sound Constitutional interpretation as exposed in the Law Review article.

Apparently, even the Supreme Court has now become ashamed of their decision after it was used to force the largest tax increase in Nevada history on the people. In an incredible move, the Court used the TASC decision to reverse itself on Guinn v Legislature.

The Supreme Court decision on TASC states: "we take this opportunity to clarify Governor v. Nevada State Legislature,[23] wherein this court, in construing the Nevada Constitution, distinguished between "procedural" and "substantive" requirements, concluding that procedure must yield to substance if the requirements conflict.[24] We expressly overrule that portion of the opinion. The Nevada Constitution should be read as a whole, so as to give effect to and harmonize each provision.[25]" http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/

Wow! --Wish they would have thought of that 3 years ago when they made the Guinn Decision in the first place. They got us once—now they got us again!! It appears the Court will do whatever it takes to achieve their corrupt political aims of increasing taxes and opposing the will of the people, even if they have to strike down their own previous outrageous decision as an excuse to strike down a tax limitation ballot measure by the people.

Poll Showed TASC Winning by 54%

The court was the last block to allowing TASC on the ballot so the people could vote. The government employees, Teachers Union and those eating at the public trough couldn’t allow TASC on the ballot so the people could vote. A poll conducted August 8, 2006 by Mason Dixon Polling & Research, as reported in the Las Vegas Review Journal, showed TASC winning among likely voters at 54%, with 20% opposed and 26% undecided. TASC would limit excessive and crushing growth of taxes and government spending. TASC would have required that the people vote on any new taxes. The corrupt Supreme Court, once again, was the ace in the hole, no matter the will of the people.

Two of the seven justices (Nancy A. Becker, Michael Douglas, Mark Gibbons, James Hardesty, A. William Maupin, Ron D. Parraguirre, Robert Rose) are up for re-election in 2006. All of the justices voted against TASC.

Current Supreme Court incumbents Nancy Becker and Michael Douglas voted against TASC. Nancy Saitta is running against Becker and opposed the Guinn Decision. Cynthia Dianne Steel is running against Douglas and also opposed the Guinn Decision. In addition, Steel’s record as a former Nevada Assemblywoman shows her to be pro-family. Janine Hansen

Supreme Court Seat G

It is almost impossible to obtain real information about where judicial candidates stand on issues, except through their decisions on cases. The Nevada Judicial Information Committee website www.nvjic.com has posted the answers they received in their questionnaire. Included here are excerpts from their answers about the 2003 case Guinn vs Legislature in which Governor Guinn seeking the largest tax increase in history took the Nevada Legislature to the Nevada Supreme Court to force the Legislature to pass the tax increase. The Court sided with the Governor under suspicion of collusion.

Nancy Becker currently sits on the Nevada Supreme Court and did more than just vote for the controversial pro-Guinn v Legislature decision, she wrote it. In addition, she voted in September 2006 to remove TASC (Tax and Spending Control for Nevada) from the ballot.

Nancy M. Saitta who currently serves as a District Judge said regarding Guinn vs Legislature "Since the constitutional provision requiring a 2/3 vote of the legislature for a tax increase or new tax was clear on its face, Justice Becker and her colleagues violated the law by ignoring the provision and instead relying on their own interpretation of the intent behind its passage. Because the provision requiring a 2/3 majority was enacted more recently than the other constitutional provisions the Supreme Court claimed were in conflict, the 2/3 majority provision should have prevailed over the simple majority provision."

Supreme Court Seat F

Cynthia "Dianne" Steel was in the Nevada Assembly in 1995. She is pro-family and for limited government. She has served since 1996 as a District Judge in the Family Division. About the Guinn issue she said in part. "I do not believe that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to intervene in the controversy between the Governor and the Legislature via the Guinn v. The Legislature of the State of Nevada, 71 P. 3d 1269 (Nev. 2003)."

Michael Douglas was appointed to the Supreme Court just months before he was elected in 2004. He ran against Joel Hansen in 2004 and was supported by the pro-tax increase establishment including Governor Guinn and Harry Reid. His partial statement on the NVJIC website regarding Guinn vs Legislature is, "I do believe that the court had jurisdiction to act on the Writ, even though I do not agree with the outcome." In addition, he voted in September 2006 to remove TASC (Tax and Spending Control for Nevada), from the ballot. In addition, he voted in September 2006 against TASC.

[ Back ]