Talk:Jane Marum Roush

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

Validity of second interim appointment

edit

This article is written with a bias in favor of the views of the Republican leadership of the General Assembly. There are conflicting viewpoints on whether Justice Roush's second pro temporare appointment was unconstitutional.[1]

I created the article and I don't understand how the author of the unsigned comment above could perceive it to reflect a partisan bias in the manner described. The article (which has not been substantially updated since the General Assembly returned for its 2016 regular session) specifically notes that "Because there is legal uncertainty about whether the legislature is still in session, it is unclear whether the governor may fill the vacancy created when Justice Roush's original interim appointment expired on September 16, 2015. Nevertheless, the governor announced his view that the legislature was not in session and purported to reappoint her for a second interim term. Whether this second interim appointment is valid or invalid has not been determined." Each of those statements is objectively correct and non-partisan. The view of the Republican leadership of the General Assembly is not that "there is legal uncertainty about whether the legislature is still in session" or that "it is unclear whether the governor may fill the vacancy when Justice Roush's original interim appointment expired"; to the contrary, the view of the Republican leadership was that the legislature *was* still in session and that the governor could not fill the vacancy after the first interim appointment expired. Glanvil (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Smith, Max. "Virginia's constitutional crisis: Is the legislature in session?". Retrieved 10 February 2016.
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jane Marum Roush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply