Brian Hagedorn

“The governor takes the collection of letters, numbers, and punctuation marks he receives from the legislature, crosses out whatever he pleases, and—presto!—out comes a new law never considered or passed by the legislature at all.”

“This decision does not derive from a neutral application of the law; it does not even pass the smell test.”

“The answer must be found in the text of the order itself. This means litigants and courts should not ordinarily resort to transcripts or other portions of the record to determine when an order is final; they should focus on what the written order says.”

“It is the ‘solemn obligation of the judiciary to faithfully give effect to the laws enacted by the legislature.’”

“The legislature passes a bill in both houses and sends it to the governor. The governor then takes the collection of letters, numbers, and punctuation marks he receives from the legislature, crosses out whatever he pleases, and—presto!—out comes a new law never considered or passed by the legislature at all. And there you have it—a governor who can propose and enact law all on his own.”

“What the constitution calls the power to 'approve in whole or in part' has transformed into the monarchical authority of one person to create brand new laws from scratch. Instead of reading what the bills actually say, and construing the partial veto power accordingly, this court treats bills presented to the governor as simply a set of alphanumeric ingredients from which the governor can cook up whatever he pleases.”

“The governor has no power to unilaterally enact laws that were never passed by the legislature, and we should say so. It is not groundbreaking to recognize that the legislature is vested with lawmaking authority, and the executive branch is not, even if this court has ignored that for some time.”

“Lest the significance be missed, this means that if a law has been enacted, it has occurred as an act of the people through their elected representatives in the assembly and senate. Whatever becomes law must be the result of the will and action of the legislature.”

“The majority sidesteps this straightforward application of the law by ignoring what the Order actually says. Nowhere in the majority will you find an interpretation of Finding 17. It barely even mentions it. Instead of wrestling with the text, the majority focuses on a heretofore unrecognized inquiry.”

“Our cases require us to focus on the text of the order to determine its finality. The text of this Order at least arguably leaves the issue of overtrial as a matter of ongoing litigation.”

“The majority fairly summarizes the law, but then fails to follow it in this case. In so doing, it risks adding more confusion to an area of the law that can ensnare even the most seasoned of litigators.”

“Our cases impose a high standard for clarity about the finality of circuit court orders, buttressed by our mandate that final orders say they are such on their face. Our rules should be straightforward; the obligation to appeal on a timely basis should not be a procedural trap for litigants or courts.”