If Bowman did as you said, then the law is in dispute, at least for Bowman, until the matter is settled in court. The court may agree with Bowman in your example, or it may say his concern was frivolous and without foundation. Until then, the matter is in dispute, at least for Bowman.

The fact that courts and parties disagree on the Mobile case to the point that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear it indicates that this is a matter of considerable dispute.

Bowman could take Plump to court for Plump going to court, that would not mean Plump’s right to go to court would be in question.

As the Law stands now, the Gov is supposed to appoint, this was thoroughly researched by many in the Legal field. There have been appointments made numerous times without issue, the one difference this time is the time left on Langford’s term. This appointment was made with a much longer term than most.

:)

It is correct, the LAW REQUIRES that an appointment be made by the Gov. Anyone that doesn’t like that needs to work to have that changed. Claiming it isn’t so and a “Court Decision” doesn’t change the facts.

A couple of other things….I know Riley and Bowman both personally. Bowman has never been a registered Dem, he has always been a Dem without the label….remember, he is a Retired Army General. There aren’t a lot of Dem Army Generals out there. Also he did not have any problems with Riley appointing him, SINCE THE LAW REQUIRES Riley do what he did. Running as a Dem had to do with Bowman’s political beliefs, not anything to do with Riley.