This is the blog we thought we were going to have yesterday, before we found out that the Supreme Court has been busy on the Freedmen case.
As one of our readers posted, the Acting Principal Chief S. Joe Crittenden (APCSJC for short), withdrew the names of Hammons and Wright as Attorney General and Marshal, respectively.
Both had passed committee, with Crittenden voting in favor of Hammons and against Wright.
It raises some questions, some of which have been asked recently but deserve answers. Can the Chief withdraw something after is passes committee? Or is it the council’s to do with as they see fit? Who is in control of a council agenda? In this case, the council deferred to the wishes of APCSJC and didn’t vote on Hammons or Wright, so we missed out on some interesting hypotheticals. Like, what if the council passed a nomination that the Acting Principal Chief didn’t agree with after all?
What if they refused to take something off the agenda, because, what the heck, it’s their agenda?
Considering it wasn’t that long ago that several of the same council members deliberately skipped work
because these exact nominations DIDN’T go through committee, it did seem kind of funny that council members were so willing to ditch the SAME NOMINATIONS after they DID go through committee.
After all the controversy we’ve had at the Cherokee Nation lately, it was actually refreshing to see the council and APCSJC treating each other with respect, so there’s that at least. Let’s hope it lasts through September 24.
