Yakima Herald Editorial Board: Let LEOs, prosecutors enforce fish & wildlife law

[pianoman9701]

The job of the WA Supreme Court is to rule on the Constitutionality of state laws and legislation. The court has no capacity to enact their own rules, only to rule on existing laws and regulations. This is the same for the SCOTUS on the federal level.

Explain to me the following website then: http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/

It was those rules that were changed which created the situation we are now in.

The rules that govern the courts were not written by the courts. They are maintained by the courts. They were written by the legislature or other party and passed by the legislature after being written by committee, or ruled on by the court. The Supreme court could however rule that those rules which govern the courts are unconstitutional, but they couldn't write new rules. As far as the bail forfeiture law is concerned, the law that was on the books was ruled unconstitutional by the state supreme court. They didn't write a new rule. They threw the old one out.

I revised this slightly

[pianoman9701]

It'd be nice if a constitutional lawyer jumped in on this one! 

[Fl0und3rz]

The Supreme Court does in fact enact rules for the administration of the courts. I don't know if this particular rule regarding bail forfeiture was a result of this rulemaking process, or whether it was a result of a particular case adjudicated before them.

 However, due process is to process, & I stand by my analysis. The current role provides a better check and balance on sloppy police and prosecutors work.

[pianoman9701]

OK, they may make rules which govern how the courts operate, but they don't make laws. They only rule on them. The only thing that the state Supreme Court did that "created that situation that we are now in", was rule that the bail forfeiture law was unconstitutional. It wasn't the creation of a rule. It was a constitutionality ruling.

[bigtex]

The only thing that the state Supreme Court did that "created that situation that we are now in", was rule that the bail forfeiture law was unconstitutional. It wasn't the creation of a rule. It was a constitutionality ruling.

That is incorrect. There was no law (RCW) that said bail forfeitures were legal/allowed and the Supreme Court overruled, it was a Supreme Court rule that said so. If you don't believe me then call up WDFW or the Supreme Court and ask them. Otherwise, if they ruled bail forfeitures were unconstitutional then why did they continue to allow the practice for 2 years? Wouldn't they have ruled their unconstitutional and as of that day no more bail forfeitures?

Furthermore, here was the proposed rule which was drafted in 2010 and went into effect in 2012: http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.proposedRuleDisplay&ruleId=204

In addition if you read the comments that were received for this rule on http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.commentDisplay&ruleId=204 you will see that ALL 7 comments received from individuals (all lawyers and or prosecutors) were OPPOSED to this change. The other comment was from an organization basically saying what the agencies and courts needed to do to prepare for this change.

[bigtex]

"Good honest people who have made a single mistake could have their lives ruined by this rule if bail forfeiture was not an option"

--Kevin P Donnelly
Attorney at Law

http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_Rules/proposed/2009Nov/CrRLJ3.2/Kevin%20Donnelly.pdf

Interesting comment