|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Libby Palanza, for the Maine Wire
Maine Rep. Laurel Libby’s (R-Auburn) right to vote and speak on the chamber floor has been temporarily reinstated by the United States Supreme Court as her case is pending on appeal.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, indicating that they would have denied the representative’s request for an injunction. Justice Jackson’s dissenting opinion centered around the argument that the Court failed to acknowledge its “threshold limitations” when deciding to issue an injunction in this case.
Late last month, Rep. Libby filed an emergency petition to the United States Supreme Court, asking for their intervention in her lawsuit against Speaker of the House Ryan Fecteau (D-Biddeford) over the fallout from her party-line censure earlier this year that stripped her of her rights to speak on the floor or vote in the legislature.
Her petition was submitted to Justice Jackson, who oversees emergency requests from the First Circuit, but was then referred to the full Court for consideration.
“This is a victory not just for my constituents, but for the Constitution itself,” said Libby in a press release Tuesday afternoon. “The Supreme Court has affirmed what should never have been in question — that no state legislature has the power to silence an elected official simply for speaking truthfully about issues that matter.”
“This decision restores the voice of 9,000 Mainers who were wrongly silenced,” Libby said. “I am grateful for the Court’s action, and I am ready to get back to work representing the people of House District 90.”
The censure sparking this lawsuit came after Libby refused to apologize for a viral social media post depicting a biologically male high school student athlete who took first place in a girls’ track and field contest.
The post continued to gain traction nationwide as it reached up to the highest levels of government and spurred a show-down between Maine Governor Janet Mills and U.S. President Donald Trump (R) on February 27.
Rhode Island-based U.S. District Court Judge Melissa DuBose denied Libby’s initial request for declaratory and injunctive relief against the terms of the censure imposed upon her by the Democratic majority in the House.
After Libby refused House leadership’s demand to apologize for the post — a condition of her censure — Speaker Fecteau stripped her of her right to vote and and participate in floor debates.
Libby still retained her right to sponsor legislation, present motions, engage in committee work, and testify at public hearings.
Concerns over the lack of representation for Libby’s 9,000 constituents have featured prominently in her case, as she was being prevented from partaking in two fundamental components of serving in the Legislature. A half dozen of her constituents joined her as plaintiffs in her complaint against House Speaker Fecteau.
Judge DuBose explained in her ruling that she denied Libby’s request for a preliminary injunction based solely on the principle of “legislative immunity,” without delving into the constitutional questions presented in the case.
Although she recognized that the censure was a “weighty sword to yield,” DuBose argued that Democrats adhered to legislative procedure and are thus protected by legislative immunity.
Libby’s appeal to the Supreme Court came almost immediately after the First Circuit Court of Appeals denied her motion for an emergency appeal that would have expedited the legal process.
Now that the Supreme Court has reinstated Libby’s right to vote and speak on the House floor, her case will continue to be considered by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, where she is seeking a permanent ruling affirming her position that “legislative leadership cannot weaponize procedure to silence dissent.”
Click Here to Read the Supreme Court’s Full Ruling
Libby Palanza is a reporter for the Maine Wire and a lifelong Mainer. She graduated from Harvard University with a degree in Government and History. She can be reached at palanza@themainewire.com.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Maine, National News
This despotic action from the democrat party which likes to throw around accusations at their political opponents of being “unConstitutional” and “threats to democracy”…And all she did was repost a photo of the podium winners at a track meet that had been shown in newspapers and seen widely all over the internet.
Who votes for these people?
I would answer you but I’ve been censored for not exposing myself.
Censored is not quite the right word….. VDC no longer allows pseudonyms for comments. Real names only, in the interests of transparency and civility and in the tradition of newspaper letters to the editor. VIP1, we would be glad to publish your comments provided you use your real name.
There are numerous people in positions in this state that cannot expose who they are because of the power some may have over them. I’ll go with censored because if I’m not using offensive or abusive language and I just present another view point, does it matter who I am? I’ve noticed that you have lost others who were pointing out views or a comments that were valid. How many comments were seen by a certain state security guard or former corrections officer prior to their retiring? Personalty, I hold your view to be coercive do this or you are out, that is censorship. It’s your publication and you are the power but some of us are not going to risk an action that may cause harm to ourselves for any number of reasons due to the abuse of power in this state. If I was retired, I would join in, however I’m not.
“There are numerous people in positions in this state that cannot expose who they are because of the power some may have over them.” What does it say about those with “power” over another will retaliate and punish a citizen for exercising their right to free speech? Sounds to me that cowaring and capitulating to fake authorities means we are not a free society at all – it is all an illusion. Is that what diversity, equity, and inclusion really means?
Sticking one’s neck out and risking the head being lobbed off is noble and courageous – as well as an exercise in futility sometimes. My social credit score tanked long ago. I suspect I am blackballed. I wear it as a badge of honor next to my black sheep pin. My middle finger still salutes those who wish and perpetrate harm upon me or wish to destroy me. My spririt not broken. My soul belongs to my Lord, my savior, my redeemer Jesus Christ. As He spoke thousands of years ago:
John 15:18-25
18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’[a] If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.”
Ain’t that the Truth, eh?
I heard a resident of Maine speak of this case – Maine taken hostage by a super majority of Dem/Progs – opined a majority of Maine residents do not support biological males participating in biological girls sports, sharing bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. By and large, it is lawfare warfare targetting women and children. To abuse, batter, and demoralize young women with impunity – all under the disguise of equity. Those who brought this abomination to pass and double down on it have no conscience, no morals, and no ethics. Judgement day is coming – the more they push – the more severe the consequences will be – they will reap what they have sowed.
Wow! She MUST apologize for speaking the truth or have no vote or say in the Maine House. What a horrendous overreaction, that could happen in Vermont very easily.
Think about two things in this issue.
1) Libby spoke truth based on Biological fact. When the Legislature in Maine demanded she apologize, (she is likely thinking apologize for telling the truth), so she refused and Maine legislation centered her and kicked her out of participating in legislative process. (Removing the voice of all her continuants)
2) After she appealed to the SCOTUS, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
If Libby was lying or fabricating a distortion of the truth that may have been different. But this was not the case.
NOW my Vermont friends, . . . do you think it can’t happen here, . . . and with a portion of the SCOTUS (like Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson allowing that to happen.
*** KNOW WHO YOU VOTE FOR ***
Just voting party lines is the gravest mistake any citizen can make. KNOW WHO and WHAT they stand for (and what they stand against)