Without Valid Written Authorization from the Deceased

Although I've disagreed with McGinn on some issues so far, I would feel better if he sounded informed about those positions. Many issues aren't concrete and simple, and there is often merit to be found in logical and fact based arguments on both sides. McGinn seems comfortable and passionate about land use and transit issues, but not much else.

When discussing law enforcement, budget, youth and family, or crime issues, he sounds uncomfortable (even awkward), aloof, or disinterested (when he's not sounding uninformed). Given my impression of him during the campaign, I was not expecting that.

I find myself questioning the quality of the information he uses to come to his decisions, and/or questioning the reasoning (and recently, effort) he uses to analyze that data. He does not inspire confidence.

Dear God, save us from the Mayor

Re: #1 – that first sentence doesn't make sense, or I'm riding the short bus. Shouldn't the parenthetical cover the entire last section, or perhaps a dash between the two semi-related thoughts?

As for #3 – I'm not surprised at the Court ruling, but am astonished at the response from the Mayor. Considering his support of the parks ban, his history as an attorney, the high profile nature of the case, and the fact that yesterday was the last day that a decision would have come down, at bare minimum he should have known which Court was being referenced.

Having not read the ruling at that point would have been fine and understandable, but not even knowing which Court it came from is kind of embarrassing.

Fixed the parentheses. Thanks.

So wait, people are criticizing McGinn because, on a day when he was focused on the Seattle police and the council's discussion of the waterfront tunnel agreements – both of which are very complex matters and among the most important issues he faces as mayor – he wasn't keeping abreast of the latest minute-by-minute updates from the US Supreme Court?

Really?

These criticisms are little more than people trying to find a reason to hate on McGinn. If he's more focused on Seattle issues than on constitutional law, that's a good sign. He will certainly be briefed on the impact of the SCOTUS gun decision at an appropriate point in time, when the city attorney and other legal advisers have had a chance to assess its possible impact on Seattle laws.

Criticizing him over this is ridiculous and not at all credible.

Not knowing the specifics of the decision is more than acceptable. Being able to say “I haven't reviewed that, and cannot comment” would be fine.

Not even knowing which Court it was is not fine. This is especially true considering that the Mayor has pushed on the gun ban in parks issue which, while the legal issue there is more local, this decision was expected to come down. As stated earlier, this has been an ongoing, and high profile (especially to local governments) case.

Following his assertions that he just implemented foot patrols for the first time in 25 years…

However, for the sake of argument, it isn't clear exactly what was asked. It does sound like, though, it was made clear that it was a SCOTUS opinion on local governments' ability to regulate gun sales – how broad and local does the 2nd Amendment get.

Oh, no, thank you. After a weekend of the Convention and Pride, I really wasn't sure who was right, and I was about to obsess over it all day. *eek!*

Good on you guys. This particular exhibit is different from other “Bodies” displays specifically because it uses cadavers who had NOT given permission. China in particular is an eggregious violator of human rights. This particular exhibition should be boycotted, as should the slave labor producing many products available in the U.S. imported from China.

http://www.McGinnforMayor.com/issues/public-safety
Halfway down the page.
Look for the words “gun ban”.
Continue Mayor Nickels’ Efforts to Ban Guns in Parks and Public Places
I support Mayor Nickels’ efforts to ban firearms from parks and public places. There is no reason for people to carry guns in our parks, and tragedies like the Folklife shootings cannot be allowed to occur.

Ring any bells?

I do not think it is a mortal sin for McGinn himself not to be aware of a SCOTUS ruling from early in the morning. I do think it is an example of poor (or no) planning on his staff's part. I do think McGinn's continued tolerance of instances where he appears unprepared indicates either an indifference to or ignorance of that appearance. I also believe either option is counterproductive and undercuts confidence in him and his leadership, which Seattle needs right now.

If you are advocating a controversial policy that has been litigated and broadly covered by the media, and a supreme court decision is pending that could impact your controversial policy and future litigation, you may want to be aware that when that decision comes, you are going to be immediately sought out by the media for your reaction. The responsibility of the Mayor's policy and communications staff is to be aware of, keep abreast of, and brief the Mayor on this, so he can address the answer. How many “controversial” policies has the mayor taken a firm stance on? How many have also been challenged in court? I think this falls within the “count on one hand” rule. You have to prepare for those situations in advance because there are too many other issues that will pop up and demand attention at the last minute.

Good planning by staff would have been knowing that this is on the SCOTUS docket and due for decision, knowing the general impacts of an uphold, overturn, or mixed decision, and having short sweet statement prepared for any of those possibilities. Poor planning would have been hearing/reading the top local and national news story in the morning, and scrambling to determine what statement the mayor should give and briefing him before news briefing he has scheduled. Would it really have been that hard take 20 seconds to talk in the hallway or to pass an index card to him that said “We are aware of the Supreme Court decision and believe it supports our policy of keeping our city's kids and families safe and protected from guns at parks” or “We are still reviewing the specifics of the decision, but stand by our policy of letting families enjoy a day at the park without the fear of guns.” What happened resulted from no planning or preparation.

Now, again, I believe this singular situation to be an issue with staff and not McGinn (although I have seen examples of great briefings by staff followed by seeming amnesia and ignorance by politicians). But as we all know perceptions count, and many will perceive this to be a problem with McGinn, undercutting confidence and/or respect in him. Why allow that perception in this situation when it is so easy to prevent? He had paid staff, and resources available in the City Attorney's office for this reason.

I wrote MUCH more than I originally intended without even covering how listening to McGinn's actual statement about the SCOTUS gun decision made me cringe from its combination of aloofness and discomfort.

Come on you guys.
1. The Washington State Constitution has an “individual” right to bear arms making the SCOTUS decision sort of irrelevant. Because the SCOTUS decision was about incorporation of federal 2a to states, but we already have an individual right to bear arms here, so, ahem, no, it's not even likley to make much of a diff. to our local gun laws, certainly not one that a diligent mayor should be expected to worry about and beathlessly hasten to the internet at 7 am to “find out” the SCOTUS decision which any one could tell you was going to be pro gun anyway.
So, in fact, asking someone which court it was is reasonable, too, and is a question any lawyer would ask. “The Supreme Court” to lawyers here, often means the one in Olympia, and they have gun rights cases, too. So if someone says “The Supreme Court” issued a ruling today, the appropriate follow up is “oh, which one did you mean?”
2. BTW whethe a mayor knows of a SCOTUS decision at 8 am or 11 am is far less worrisome than whether or not someone regularly commenting on state politics knows the population of several counties is more than 200,000. I mean if you think Seattle is the only one, you'd think Seattle is …what the lion's share of votes in the state? Pretty key to know we're only 15% of the state population and there are several counties that yes, have more than 200K.

I'm afraid I don't understand your second bit, and can only assume it isn't directed at me.

As for the SC question – yes, we have a WSSC, but yesterday was the day that the subject opinion was going to be handed down by SCOTUS. The opinion dealt most directly with a city and a handgun ban.

The effect aside, the Mayor's vapid support of the gun ban in parks, and his position as Mayor, it is not hard to connect the dots, and it is not a “gotcha” situation to ask him what he thinks of a ruling on the second amendment and its application to local governments.

poliTICKLING covered it very well when indicating that, further, the political/messaging machine dropped the ball here. The Mayor is about to do a presser, a major decision regarding local governments' ability to regulate firearms has just come out of the Supreme Court, and the Mayor doesn't know that there has even been a ruling?

On a day when he's focused on rolling out new initiatives with the SPD and the tunnel, I think he can be forgiven for not having a response the second the decision was announced. If it were in a case involving the city of Seattle, I might be inclined to agree with you. But it wasn't. The impact of the case on the Seattle law is unclear.

The fact is, you're criticizing him for not being familiar on a SCOTUS decision as soon as it was handed down, when his job is to be the mayor of Seattle and not a con law scholar. It's an absurd criticism.

Do you expect the mayor to have a well-informed opinion on everything happening around the country that could potentially impact the city of Seattle? It's an absurd and unrealistic expectation.

If McGinn's response was “I don't care” then you might have a point. But we know he'll sit down with staff, the city attorney, and others to assess the possible impact of this case on Seattle laws. That's a better way to handle this than to spout off with an uninformed opinion just an hour or two after the decision was handed down.

I haven't seen it yet, so forgive me if I boycott -after- I go.
Really, I couldn't afford the display of American bodies who gave permission. They're wanting serious bucks for that one.

I expect the mayor of a major city that made a big deal about banning guns in parks during a campaign to be, at bare minimum, aware of which court is about to release (and, in this case, had just released) an opinion that could have a major impact on that issue. He has every reason to have not read the opinion, to have been able to say “I haven't read that yet, and can't comment”, to have not formed an opinion.

But knowing about pending litigation before SCOTUS with such major national implications for local jurisdictions is not too much to ask. One of the benefits of being mayor of a major city is being aware of all sorts of things. Multitasking.

I agree with Jeff. It is about time that the Bodies exhibit was banned. Taking a copse of a young healthy Chinese man who died in mysterious circumstances, and turning it into an info-tainment display of muscles holding a football just isn't right. If people want to donate their bodies for public display that is one thing, but buying anonymous bodies from China is an entirely different matter.