Howie Fischer plays Brewer lobbyist

by David Safier

Though I can't peer into Howie Fischer's heart of hearts, I expect I would find it aflutter, and his eyes amist, when he writes about Jan Brewer. The guv can do little wrong in Howie's eyes.

Today's case in point: Fischer's article about Brewer's arguments that the AZ Supremes should ignore the concept of "intent" when deciding on her right to oust Colleen Mathis.

Gov. Jan Brewer says the Arizona Supreme Court should ignore arguments by those who crafted the redistricting initiative that her actions in firing the chairwoman of that panel go beyond what they intended.

That first paragraph is decent enough reporting. But an article like this should, somewhere in the middle, pose cogent objections to Brewer's point. What we get instead is a weak paraphrase of the arguments from those opposing Mathis' ouster, followed by a sharp rebuttal from Lisa Hauser, Brewer's lawyer.

The trio acknowledged the measure does allow the governor to fire any member of the Independent Redistricting Commission for gross misconduct or substantial neglect of duty. But they said their intent was to limit removal to "serious offenses like bribery or extortion."

Hauser said that intent is legally irrelevant.

If you want to see how coverage of opposition arguments should be done, just look at an earlier Fischer article about the arguments against Mathis' removal. Starting on paragraph 6, Brewer's side is given three paragraphs to explain its point of view clearly and forcefully. Quite a difference.

How hard is it to create a rebuttal to Hauser's contention that the intent of those who wrote the redistricting measure is irrelevant — that only the specific words of the measure matter? To find out, let's do a little Fischer vs. Fischer.

Check out another Fischer article in today's paper, about the AZ Supreme's unanimous takedown of the attempt to overturn the Pearce recall by saying the recallers didn't adhere to the absolute letter of the law.

In a unanimous decision, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected arguments by attorneys of supporters of Russell Pearce that those seeking to remove an elected official must be in "strict compliance" with each and every element of constitutional and statutory provisions about recall.

The justices said such a minute level of compliance is legally unnecessary and goes against the intent of the law.

[snip]

"Adopting a standard that makes it more difficult for the public to remove its own officers would frustrate this historical intent," she wrote. [boldface added]

It looks like the Supreme Court, unlike Brewer, thinks the "intent" of the law is very, very important. And, though I'm not a lawyer, my lay understanding of U.S. Supreme Court discussions leads me to believe they often argue over the "intent" of the founders when they discuss how the Constitution should be interpreted.

If Fischer can make the point about "intent" in the recall article, it shouldn't be hard to work it into an article where Brewer denies the importance of intent.

UPDATE: I wrote this post without reading AZ Blue Meanie's post, directly below. The Meanie, being a lawyer, makes the same point about "intent" more forcefully than I. I'm one of those "Even non-lawyers" he refers to who can easily see through Hauser's argument. If want a well reasoned legal argument, read the next post down.