The latest article on ASUC Judicial Council rulings has **errors**

The decision, however, is not binding but is just an advisory opinion since Lee was unable to attend the hearing, said Mike Davis, assistant chair of the Judicial Council.

No he didn't! Senator Lee's attendance at the Council meeting was irrelevant. The Opinion would've been advisory if she had in the room shouting 'Look at me! Look at me!' Reason being, it is EVP Gomez's decision about whether or not to disbarr Senator Lee.

ASUC Executive Vice President Taina Gomez, who chairs senate meetings, can decide whether Lee's reasons to miss meetings are sufficient. She could take yesterday's opinion under advisement in making her decision, Davis said.

What this means is the Council has no power to make a judgement in advance of her decision, in the same way a Judge cannot strike down a law in advance of it being passed. What they can do is make an Advisory opinion, stating that the Council WOULD consider it Unconstitutional to disbarr Senator Lee from serving if she has a medical excuse. However, it would be Constitutional to disbarr her if she cannot attend classes due to the fee increases.

Note also that EVP Gomez can decide that the Fee Increase reasons are sufficient for her to continue serving in the Senate. But this doesn't mean Senator Lee is off the hook-- anyone can sue once she violates the mandatory Attendance amounts, and the J-Council would probably order her removed from the Senate.

Also,

The Council found her reasons for missing meetings because of medical circumstances are valid, as ASUC bylaws state that senators can be excused for meetings if they present a valid medical excuse.

ASUC Constitution, not Bylaws.Email This Post!