Going to close your own post with how smart you see yourself?

You may be correct, but you're like school in the summertime, baby.

I had Gerberding as a college student at UCLA in 1964 and he still pisses me off.

Referring-to-himself-in-third-person Goldy is my favorite Goldy!

McKenna always was, always will be, a lousy lawyer.

"Stupid, stupid, Rob McKenna. Smart, smart, Goldy.."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhvDMhrws…

@ 1, ordinarily I'm no fan of people who toot their own horn, but given Goldy's profession and this particular context, I say he's earned it.

I've just read the opinion since they arrive in my email automatically, and it seems that you have ignored the Referendum Requirement, which was ruled non-justiciable. Are you on record on that side? (just a little needle there)

Still, good work Goldy - I happen to agree with the majority on both issues (particularly the constitutionality issue and the idea that the Referendum Requirement isn't ripe) and think that the severability language actually helps, since this opinion now can focus on the super-majority requirement and not the over-spending language.

I've spent a lot of time with most of these jurists - the split doesn't surprise me.

Really it's impossible to reconcile the Two Washingtons. It is more of a social issue than a political one.

You have a big population recently moved that wants East Coast style services like transit and which may have high income is asset poor living in tiny houses at high prices.

You have a "native" population that is land rich and somewhat income poor that wants to keep its way of life and not be forced into spending.

Pretty sure you called the ruling in the Rossi recount as well, yes? (as did I, an eavesdropping Oregonian)

The great prognosticator, Goldy- you haven't failed me yet!

@7 No, I am not on the record on the referendum provision. So my record holds.

Goldy, you had it spot on. Court got it right with the bookends. The founders knew what a supermajority was and how to put it in. Very surprised by Stephens and Chuck Johnson taking the extreme view on justiciability (i.e. - this case probably couldn't ever be heard, because look, other times were the wrong time).

@9 You and I called the Rossi election challenge months before the trial, pointing out the exact legal arguments on which it failed.

I also called Goldmark v. McKenna, and the health care lawsuit (on taxing authority, no less). The law is constructed out of words. It's not rocket science.

Gardening and legal expertise. I wish you could combine the two in a cable access show.

Goldy @13 - Of course, sometimes they just get it wrong: The words are twisted and the rocket explodes.

GERBERDING v. MUNRO, not "Monroe".

The Secretary of State's name was Ralph Munro.

So, when are you going to start asking the senators what their plans are? Are you going to criticize them for attempting to pass regressive taxes, or are we still going with the any taxes are good taxes meme that has fucked over the poor in this state for so long?

@17 We've been through this before. The fact that I have failed to successfully advocate for progressive tax reform does not mean that I have failed to advocate for progressive tax reform. It's been my number one issue since I started blogging in 2004. And I have routinely criticized Democrats for their failure to make progress on this issue.

@18 Have you actually ASKED any of the senators or representatives what their tax plans are post-victory?

Really, I didn't see any criticism of the transportation package that was introduced last week (two weeks ago), that was almost exclusively regressive taxes and fees. Not from you, nor from The Stranger. Though, Dominic did get frustrated that bikes would have to pay a fee, not based on regression but based on "Bikers shouldn't have to pay extra!" that made him sound like a Tim Eyman motherfucker.

Or, are you just claiming that regressive taxation has been your number one issue without actually doing any journalism on what the aftermath will be?

I've been asking for months.

Got tax exemptions?

Not so fast ...

@19 lots of commentary on SeaBikes blog on that. Too many new roads, not enough funds.

Kill it. And the Deep Tolled Tunnel we still can't afford.

@20 I don't believe that will happen. If wishes were unicorns...

I don't trust a single blog with the word bike in it. If its anything like the Cascade Bike Club or the Seattle Bike Blog, they're a bunch of no good liars.

@3, me too. Sometimes I have the urge to ask Goldy if Goldy's been giving Goldy enough praise and flattery, because Goldy seems a little neglected.

(Congrats on being right, Goldy!)