Yesterday it was reported on NPR that the Governors office was being threatned with a lawsuit over her non compliance with providing e-mails concerning her decision not to expand medicaid roles. Also discussed was her non compliance with having a designated official to provide public records to the public. Nary a mention was made in the DO, or local television. Why has local media gone black on this issue? Inquiring minds...

Yesterday it was reported on NPR that the Governors office was being threatned with a lawsuit over her non compliance with providing e-mails concerning her decision not to expand medicaid roles. Also discussed was her non compliance with having a designated official to provide public records to the public. Nary a mention was made in the DO, or local television. Why has local media gone black on this issue? Inquiring minds...

Surprisingly, it was The Oklahoman who made the first FOIA request and editorialized against Fallin's refusal to hand over the records.
http://newsok.com/gov.-mary-fallins-office-wont-release-emails-on-health-care-decision/article/3731064

She just another corrupt politico that doesn't want to fess up and admit to being a puppet to special interests. Somewhere that goes against that whole "Faith, Family, and Freedom" thing, but Joe Voter with his IQ of 13 is too stupid to pay attention. :-P

Yesterday it was reported on NPR that the Governors office was being threatned with a lawsuit over her non compliance with providing e-mails concerning her decision not to expand medicaid roles. Also discussed was her non compliance with having a designated official to provide public records to the public. Nary a mention was made in the DO, or local television. Why has local media gone black on this issue? Inquiring minds...

You've not been reading The Oklahoman .... if you were, you'd know this records release started with an investigation by Oklahoman reporter Zeke Campfield. Don't believe everything you read on blogs.

You've not been reading The Oklahoman .... if you were, you'd know this records release started with an investigation by Oklahoman reporter Zeke Campfield. Don't believe everything you read on blogs.

I was aware of the initial story that ran last year, but was noting that I have seen nothing in the local media the last 60 days or so. Correct me if I missed something. Was the Oklahoman following up the denial with legal action? The source of my interest was NPR, not blogs.

The Oklahoman met personally with governor a few weeks ago and has continued to press this matter ....

FOI requests - even very valid one's - are often ignored in Oklahoma (can't speak for elsewhere). Often they take the stance, "go get a lawyer and make us" knowing most people cannot afford such action. I do FOI requests from time-to-time. Some are honored, but many are not.

My most recent denial was from the court clerks office. They admitted what I wanted was a public record and that they used to give it to me on a regular basis - but now were not going to.

Will make the request again in the coming months. If its denied then I will indeed sue. But that 's about a $4,000 process to start (in this case) - so I'm in no big hurry.

She just another corrupt politico that doesn't want to fess up and admit to being a puppet to special interests. Somewhere that goes against that whole "Faith, Family, and Freedom" thing, but Joe Voter with his IQ of 13 is too stupid to pay attention. :-P

At least Barry, the "most transparent" politician ever complies, right.........

At least Barry, the "most transparent" politician ever complies, right.........

Who even mentioned him? We are talking about the governor here. Geez..after almost 18k posts on this board, you'd think you would be a little bit more prepared before making your posts. Guess not.

Who even mentioned him? We are talking about the governor here. Geez..after almost 18k posts on this board, you'd think you would be a little bit more prepared before making your posts. Guess not.

Hey... never pass up a chance to attack the President, doesn't matter if the thread is about him or not.

At least Barry, the "most transparent" politician ever complies, right.........

At least the President is allowed to invoke "executive privelage." Mary just made it up for herself. But theres no reason to bring the President in this.

At least the President is allowed to invoke "executive privelage." Mary just made it up for herself. But theres no reason to bring the President in this.

executive privilege .. was just made up the first time it was used

executive privilege .. was just made up the first time it was used

In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.(Chief Justice Burger, writing for the majority in US v. Nixon noted: "Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (Supreme Court opinion at FindLaw))-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege.

First claimed by G. Washington who refused to turn over documents to the House of Reps., concerning the Jay Treaty.

This is the sort of thing that ticks me off. There is no reason at all that this information should be sealed. If you are a public official making a decision for the public, your thought process should be open to the public. This reasoning for not giving it over is nonsense, and all it does is make me think that some big-name donor shot her an e-mail and she changed her mind because of it. Hope this lawsuit works, this sort of behavior is despicable.

On another note, it's not really a blackout if they reported the story as it happened, is it? I know it's fashionable to bash the local papers, and there are some things that are worthy of criticism in any paper, but I've found that the stories people complain about not seeing until a national outlet says something are usually reported and heavily debated for months, and people just don't read the paper.

All but 100 pages were released, she's refusing to release those pages.

All but 100 pages were released, she's refusing to release those pages.

AKA the Koch brothers e-mails

What an insulting act by the governor. Complying with an FOIA request by releasing 51,000 pages on Good Friday when lots of people aren't around. What an absolute slap in the face of the three million Oklahomans she was elected to serve. I've never cared much about her either way - she has yet to accomplish anything substantive as governor as far as I can tell - but her manner of governing is making me pay closer attention.

One wonders what is contained in the 100 pages not released; must be explosive.

One also wonders if there was any email traffic between the Oklahoman ownership and the governor, or between the Oklahoman editorial board and the governor. Considering that the Oklahoman editorial board is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Heritage Foundation, inquiring minds want to know.

I'm ready to see the one that promised her a high paying lobbyist gig after her do nothing tenure is over

Kudos to Patrick at The Lost Ogle and the ACLU for their efforts helping to make this happen. They deserve some of the credit at least.

http://www.thelostogle.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Scan-of-final-letter-to-Mullins-on-Fallin-Open-records-request.pdf

I'll repeat what I said on Twitter: those who want to deprive Oklahoman reporter Zeke Campfield of credit for his hard work are dishonest & are suspect on their agenda. And I'll add one more thing: the emails show Zeke starting this whole thing, going to battle against Fallin, kept at it, and then OETA's Bob Sands, The Tulsa World's Wayne Green, The Oklahoma Gazette's Clifton Adcock and KOKH's Phil Cross joining in the fight a couple weeks in. That's the list, as it was, until December. And Zeke - God bless him - he stuck with it. He kept going and going. Editors kept up the pressure. Fallin came to the newsroom to visit about the matter. By the time the ACLU jumped on board, the emails were being prepped for release. If you REALLY think the governor was able to suddenly crank out all 50,000 emails in 12 hours in response to the ACLU letter, well, yeah, whatever.
Zeke Campfield and The Oklahoman brought these emails to light. Period.
I will applaud any lawyer, including Henderson, who might proceed with legal action against the governor for continuing to claim a non-existent "executive privilege" on the 100 withheld emails.

I'll repeat what I said on Twitter: those who want to deprive Oklahoman reporter Zeke Campfield of credit for his hard work are dishonest & are suspect on their agenda. And I'll add one more thing: the emails show Zeke starting this whole thing, going to battle against Fallin, kept at it, and then OETA's Bob Sands, The Tulsa World's Wayne Green, The Oklahoma Gazette's Clifton Adcock and KOKH's Phil Cross joining in the fight a couple weeks in. That's the list, as it was, until December. And Zeke - God bless him - he stuck with it. He kept going and going. Editors kept up the pressure. Fallin came to the newsroom to visit about the matter. By the time the ACLU jumped on board, the emails were being prepped for release.
Zeke Campfield and The Oklahoman brought these emails to light. Period.
I will applaud any lawyer, including Henderson, who might proceed with legal action against the governor for continuing to claim a non-existent "executive privilege" on the 100 withheld emails.

Of course he/they get credit. It's wrong to leave out and not give some of it to the long effort of Patrick and the ACLU though. And it's bad reporting.


If you REALLY think the governor was able to suddenly crank out all 50,000 emails in 12 hours in response to the ACLU letter, well, yeah, whatever.


No, they obviously have been poring over the material for some time waiting for the gun to their head. They got that from the ACLU.

Anyone who pretends the ACLU doesn't have 1000 times more swing than all the press of Oklahoma is delusional.

I'll repeat what I said on Twitter: those who want to deprive Oklahoman reporter Zeke Campfield of credit for his hard work are dishonest & are suspect on their agenda. And I'll add one more thing: the emails show Zeke starting this whole thing, going to battle against Fallin, kept at it, and then OETA's Bob Sands, The Tulsa World's Wayne Green, The Oklahoma Gazette's Clifton Adcock and KOKH's Phil Cross joining in the fight a couple weeks in. That's the list, as it was, until December. And Zeke - God bless him - he stuck with it. He kept going and going. Editors kept up the pressure. Fallin came to the newsroom to visit about the matter. By the time the ACLU jumped on board, the emails were being prepped for release. If you REALLY think the governor was able to suddenly crank out all 50,000 emails in 12 hours in response to the ACLU letter, well, yeah, whatever.
Zeke Campfield and The Oklahoman brought these emails to light. Period.
I will applaud any lawyer, including Henderson, who might proceed with legal action against the governor for continuing to claim a non-existent "executive privilege" on the 100 withheld emails.

There's a pervasive narrative that the DO is firmly in the pocket of local big business and the Republican party in general. When events don't fit the narrative, people tend to overlook them(The DO fighting against our republican governor for records? Inconceivable!). The idea of TLO being a plucky little underdog fighting for information that is rightfully ours is a much warmer and fuzzier narrative than our large, local news paper doing it's job.

That being said, I like TLO and read it periodically, but they're not the kind of organization I trust for real journalism. Kudos to them for getting the ACLU involved and taking a stand, but they're still just a local satire source.

I like TLO and read it periodically, but they're not the kind of organization I trust for real journalism. Kudos to them for getting the ACLU involved and taking a stand.

I don't think you meant to imply that TLO is giving orders to the ACLU. At least I HOPE not! After the 51,000 document release, TLO focused on an email from a governor's staff member about a legislator staring at her breasts.

I don't think you meant to imply that TLO is giving orders to the ACLU. At least I HOPE not! After the 51,000 document release, TLO focused on an email from a governor's staff member about a legislator staring at her breasts.

It was my understanding, which may be wrong, that TLO contacted the ACLU about filing suit. Not that they are "giving orders" just that they worked to get them involved.

You can go back to my post 21 and read the last letter the ACLU wrote to the state with their narrative of events. The ACLU prepared the record request for TLO in December. The ACLU followed up numerous times on the phone, by certified mail and in person over the following weeks. The actual record dissemination happened immediately following when the ACLU submitted that last and final letter.

Which BTW, does not match Steve's narrative that the ACLU only got involved 12 hours before the record release. They got involved after the DO started this pursuit, but months before anything happened.

Kudos to the DO for their ideas and efforts to pursue the issue. Kudos to TLO and the ACLU for their pressure. Not so much to the DO for the bad reporting of what role TLO and the ACLU played.

I'm going to stick with what I said - the idea that The Oklahoman and Zeke Campfield somehow did not do the job here, which is what TLO implied, and that TLO and the ACLU are to credit, is crazy. This is a theme started by TLO is its post last week, continued by their readers through social media, etc. I applaud TLO and the ACLU for joining the effort to get the records law complied with after it was started by Zeke and built up by The Gazette, Tulsa World, OETA and KOKH... but to say they're the ones who got this done, and that the release was directly tied to the letter last week - that's not right (as acknowledged in a classy follow-up by TLO). I may have been too harsh on TLO and the ACLU - but I don't take back the basic thought here - it's dishonest to suggest The Oklahoman didn't do the job on this.

dumping documents on a friday afternoon is nothing new in the political arena. Politicians on the left and the right do this all the time. If you believe she is the first person to do this, you are fairly new to the political game.

I will applaud any lawyer, including Henderson, who might proceed with legal action against the governor for continuing to claim a non-existent "executive privilege" on the 100 withheld emails.

I'd need a client (someone with solid standing, preferably a media or new media source), but it sounds like fun.

I'm in (we'd have to talk about the money thing, I don't want to get into a 2-year + protracted fight at the Supreme Court for free, but I'd definitely work with whoever wants to take this on).

I'll repeat what I said on Twitter: those who want to deprive Oklahoman reporter Zeke Campfield of credit for his hard work are dishonest & are suspect on their agenda. And I'll add one more thing: the emails show Zeke starting this whole thing, going to battle against Fallin, kept at it, and then OETA's Bob Sands, The Tulsa World's Wayne Green, The Oklahoma Gazette's Clifton Adcock and KOKH's Phil Cross joining in the fight a couple weeks in. That's the list, as it was, until December. And Zeke - God bless him - he stuck with it. He kept going and going. Editors kept up the pressure. Fallin came to the newsroom to visit about the matter. By the time the ACLU jumped on board, the emails were being prepped for release. If you REALLY think the governor was able to suddenly crank out all 50,000 emails in 12 hours in response to the ACLU letter, well, yeah, whatever.
Zeke Campfield and The Oklahoman brought these emails to light. Period.
I will applaud any lawyer, including Henderson, who might proceed with legal action against the governor for continuing to claim a non-existent "executive privilege" on the 100 withheld emails.

Here's the thing Steve. Campfield, Sands, Green, etc., exchanging emails and pretty pleases for something which is by law their right to have is ridiculous. Surely the Oklahoman can afford counsel to do so. Maybe you even have general counsel on staff or could pool with other media organizations to hire a lawyer to file a lawsuit to get the records. Of course I recognize that you're going to be in a protracted battle with the A.G.'s office over the remaining records claimed by executive privilege, but if you want to support openness in our government, as members of the news media, you are the 4th Estate, the folks whose civic duty it is to pursue that information.

If Fallin wanted to cut off Campfield's access over him pursuing something he has a right to have, what's that they say about never picking a fight with anyone who buys their ink by the barrel?

There's a disconnect on this site: I hear repeatedly from naysayers that the newspaper is dead or dying, yet they also think it's still got huge coffers of money... Midtowner, The Oklahoman has gone through four brutal layoffs the past decade. We're stable right now, but the idea of The Oklahoman having a lot of money to get into legal fights is outdated... but that's not even the point here. My bit was this: it's dishonest to downplay Zeke Campfield's work on this records fight.

it's dishonest to downplay Zeke Campfield's work on this records fight.

I've repeatedly given him props for his effort. It's dishonest to continue to pretend the ACLU did not influence the outcome.

The Oklahoman has gone through four brutal layoffs the past decade. We're stable right now, but the idea of The Oklahoman having a lot of money to get into legal fights is outdated...

Bingo. The ACLU was in it for months and were ready to take it to the next level. I seriously doubt the paper ever was or ever would and the players all knew that.

There's a disconnect on this site: I hear repeatedly from naysayers that the newspaper is dead or dying, yet they also think it's still got huge coffers of money... Midtowner, The Oklahoman has gone through four brutal layoffs the past decade. We're stable right now, but the idea of The Oklahoman having a lot of money to get into legal fights is outdated... but that's not even the point here. My bit was this: it's dishonest to downplay Zeke Campfield's work on this records fight.

Campfield didn't contact the ACLU and at least to those of us looking in from the outside could have been something Campfield should have done months ago. And the Oklahoman wouldn't have to go it alone. The networks retain counsel to get records released in criminal cases they try to cover, so why couldn't various media and new media outlets pony up a little money for attorney fees. There's even a good chance you'd end up getting your attorney fees paid because the Open Records Act provides for attorneys fees to anyone who successfully challenges a denial of access to public records. While this case isn't 100% guaranteed to be successful, there are really good arguments on both sides, and it's a fight which needs to be fought so that we'll know once and for all whether the Governor can really pull this $*#$.

If the Oklahoman doesn't have money, be creative. I'll bet someone out there does. Maybe the Democratic Party would pony up the fees and partner up with the Oklahoman? Maybe they'd even provide counsel? I don't accept the excuse that there is no money. This is an important political figure trying to hide something which is apparently damaging to her.

There's a disconnect on this site: I hear repeatedly from naysayers that the newspaper is dead or dying, yet they also think it's still got huge coffers of money... Midtowner, The Oklahoman has gone through four brutal layoffs the past decade. We're stable right now, but the idea of The Oklahoman having a lot of money to get into legal fights is outdated... but that's not even the point here. My bit was this: it's dishonest to downplay Zeke Campfield's work on this records fight.

No one is questioning this. The only argument is whether the ACLU and TLO played an important role. They did, but you downplayed that earlier in the thread.

Like always, we all appreciate your contributions and those of the good journalists at The Oklahoman.

I'd need a client (someone with solid standing, preferably a media or new media source), but it sounds like fun.

I'm in (we'd have to talk about the money thing, I don't want to get into a 2-year + protracted fight at the Supreme Court for free, but I'd definitely work with whoever wants to take this on).

Any ballpark idea on what itd cost, at a minimum, to take this to court?

Any ballpark idea on what itd cost, at a minimum, to take this to court?

It depends on how hard you litigate the issue, appeals, etc., but I would ballpark $20-50k on a declaratory judgment type of action, $100k+ if it went to a full blown trial.

It depends on how hard you litigate the issue, appeals, etc., but I would ballpark $20-50k on a declaratory judgment type of action, $100k+ if it went to a full blown trial.

I'm not so sure.

Then you'll probably have dueling summary judgment motions. I don't know what factual issues would be in dispute, especially because my position would be that there's no such thing as executive privilege in Oklahoma. I don't really see how depositions and that sort of thing would play into this case, it's a pure legal question. I'm guessing $10-$15K.

Tell me what factual issues you think could possibly be in dispute?

Like always, we all appreciate your contributions and those of the good journalists at The Oklahoman.

Likewise. I read a lot of what you post here, some of your blog and facebook page. I read the TLO occasionally too but I read a lot more of your stuff than Patrick’s, not that there’s any comparison, you occupy vastly different spaces. I know Patrick somewhat and know some of his family well. (We've not spoken about it). I have a lot of respect for the ACLU, but no connection to them financially or otherwise. (We all should send the ACLU some money but I never have.) If I haven't said it enough already, I do respect what Zeke and the DO have done thus far in this bit of journalism.

I'm not so sure.

Then you'll probably have dueling summary judgment motions. I don't know what factual issues would be in dispute, especially because my position would be that there's no such thing as executive privilege in Oklahoma. I don't really see how depositions and that sort of thing would play into this case, it's a pure legal question. I'm guessing $10-$15K.

Tell me what factual issues you think could possibly be in dispute?

That's a good point Midtowner, I guess the only factual issues could come up if the judge decided that an executive privilege did exist, and the parties fought over whether the facts relating to particular documents made them fall within the privilege or not. If we are just talking about a matter of law decided at summary judgment - whether an executive privilege to the open records act exists - then I think you're probably close to the ballpark at $10-15k, although I would probably say just a bit higher at $20-30k.

Media types, if you are interested in giving open records a little more than lip service, I'm down for lunch with any of you. If the ACLU thing stalls out, someone contact me. I'd need a client with standing, which will be much more strong with you media types, but theoretically could be anyone. I'm part of a 2 person firm, so I'd also be interested in meeting with other legal types.

Steve, I really don't buy what you're selling regarding the funds. If y'all looked around, you might've even been able to find an attorney who'd take the case pro bono for a little ink about a lawyer crusading for the forces of good.

As for anyone underestimating TLO, that's a big mistake. I am simply amazed how many people say "Did you hear about this and that, it was on The Lost Ogle this morning". Welcome to the real world of New Media, for better or worse.

The Lost Ogle files a lawsuit via the ACLU for the remaining emails.

The Lost Ogle We?re suing the Governor?s Office. I guess that means we?re no longer ?obscure.? | The Lost Ogle (http://www.thelostogle.com/2013/04/10/were-suing-the-governors-office-i-guess-that-means-were-no-longer-obscure/?fb_source=pubv1)

So did the Oklahoman lose the phone number for the ACLU?

i will just point out that even though "most" seem to think the Oklahoma governor is in the wrong this decision was not just her choice... some very smart legal minds including her general council seem to think they have a good case

Sounds like she's imitating the "most transparent administration ever".

Metro, as happy as you are to chide folks who can't remain on subject, you can't seem to resist making a thread about Mary Fallin's resistance to a FOIA request into something about the President. We get it, you don't like him because he's a Kenyan Muslim Socialist. Keep it in the political forum.

Boulder, the "executive privilege" is certainly recognized by the President. That's obviously not the same as the Governor. Yes, 46 other states recognize this privilege, but I'm not sure whether those 46 states have laws stating what documents are and aren't privileged and specifically exclude this sort of correspondence. I understand her argument is something about the inherent nature of the executive branch. I guess that might play out in other states, but looking through the (very long) Oklahoma Constitution, I don't see anything about the governor's authority to withhold records she deems privileged. Someone could point that out to me if it exists though.

And don't take her lawyer's word as gospel. He's just saying he has an argument and he does. We have yet to find out what the law is on this and I have a feeling it'll be resolved by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Metro, as happy as you are to chide folks who can't remain on subject, you can't seem to resist making a thread about Mary Fallin's resistance to a FOIA request into something about the President. We get it, you don't like him because he's a Kenyan Muslim Socialist. Keep it in the political forum.

Some people just can't help themselves. It's easier just putting people on ignore making them irrelevant over time as they get fewer and fewer reactions. :)


Boulder, the "executive privilege" is certainly recognized by the President. That's obviously not the same as the Governor. Yes, 46 other states recognize this privilege, but I'm not sure whether those 46 states have laws stating what documents are and aren't privileged and specifically exclude this sort of correspondence. I understand her argument is something about the inherent nature of the executive branch. I guess that might play out in other states, but looking through the (very long) Oklahoma Constitution, I don't see anything about the governor's authority to withhold records she deems privileged. Someone could point that out to me if it exists though.

And don't take her lawyer's word as gospel. He's just saying he has an argument and he does. We have yet to find out what the law is on this and I have a feeling it'll be resolved by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

I can't think how much of a slippery slope this will be if this goes to the state Supreme Court and decreed the Governor does have executive privilege. We all expect the shady politics in the national stage, but closer to home we have to keep it as transparent as possible.

And don't take her lawyer's word as gospel. He's just saying he has an argument and he does. We have yet to find out what the law is on this and I have a feeling it'll be resolved by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Lets just hope it happens before the next governors election.

Metro, as happy as you are to chide folks who can't remain on subject, you can't seem to resist making a thread about Mary Fallin's resistance to a FOIA request into something about the President. We get it, you don't like him because he's a Kenyan Muslim Socialist. Keep it in the political forum.

Boulder, the "executive privilege" is certainly recognized by the President. That's obviously not the same as the Governor. Yes, 46 other states recognize this privilege, but I'm not sure whether those 46 states have laws stating what documents are and aren't privileged and specifically exclude this sort of correspondence. I understand her argument is something about the inherent nature of the executive branch. I guess that might play out in other states, but looking through the (very long) Oklahoma Constitution, I don't see anything about the governor's authority to withhold records she deems privileged. Someone could point that out to me if it exists though.

And don't take her lawyer's word as gospel. He's just saying he has an argument and he does. We have yet to find out what the law is on this and I have a feeling it'll be resolved by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

again thank you i always value you take on legal matters ...

just fyi i don't take it as the gov office is correct ... just that they have some smart legal minds that feel they can make a good argument to the court and it is not nearly as much of a black and white issue that some would present ..

Metro, as happy as you are to chide folks who can't remain on subject, you can't seem to resist making a thread about Mary Fallin's resistance to a FOIA request into something about the President. We get it, you don't like him because he's a Kenyan Muslim Socialist. Keep it in the political forum.

I agree & it also made me laugh. :)

Boulder, fwiw, someone deciding there is a colorable argument which can be made does not necessarily equate to a significant belief the argument can carry the day. It can simply mean there exists some modicum of cover for one to act in a way one wishes to act without getting bit overly hard in the process.

Not saying that is the situation regarding the current situation, just noting 'how far can x be pushed' is not the same question as 'if x is challenged, is the position we intend to take a dead bang winner.'

Metro, as happy as you are to chide folks who can't remain on subject, you can't seem to resist making a thread about Mary Fallin's resistance to a FOIA request into something about the President. We get it, you don't like him because he's a Kenyan Muslim Socialist. Keep it in the political forum.


*like*

Boulder, fwiw, someone deciding there is a colorable argument which can be made does not necessarily equate to a significant belief the argument can carry the day. It can simply mean there exists some modicum of cover for one to act in a way one wishes to act without getting bit overly hard in the process.

Not saying that is the situation regarding the current situation, just noting 'how far can x be pushed' is not the same question as 'if x is challenged, is the position we intend to take a dead bang winner.'

no doubt

So did the Oklahoman lose the phone number for the ACLU?

crickets

crickets

Reporters these days are more worried about losing access than getting the news out. It's tough to balance the two, but politics and reporting the news has become a very incestuous thing.

Looks like the governor's office answered to allegations and asked for declaratory and injunctive relief. I wonder how long before the judge rules on that? Would setting a trial date be next if she denies the request?

OCIS Case Summary for CV-2013-763- Vandelay Entertainment LLC v. Fallin, Mary (Oklahoma County District Courts) (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2983479&db=Oklahoma)

If only we had a strong moderate conservative candidate, who doesn't pander to social issues, that could come in and run against her. She is so beatable, just not by a D.

Interesting thought venture, but I'm somewhat convinced a meaningfully moderate R could not win the party nomination against a 3F incumbent.