Blue Ribbon Panel? Try the Voters Instead
March 27, 2008
Who awards blue ribbons? And where can we get one?
The AP reports that a “blue-ribbon panel” in Carson City, Nevada, voted 18 to 2 to place before Nevada voters in 2010 a constitutional change to scrap the direct election of judges with a political selection process.
Similar plans have been put before the voters and state legislature before—and have been routinely rejected. Two skeptics on the Article 6 Commission formed by the state Supreme Court succinctly described the doubts voters are going to have about this proposal.
The panel’s co-chair, Paula Gentile, doubted that the appointment of judges “adds anything to the equation.” She supported, instead, an approach that would put more emphasis on evaluating the performance of judges on the bench.
Another panel member, Frank Ellis was more blunt. He said he was worried the change would create a perception of “good old boys and good old girls” in cahoots in Carson City.
What did proponents for the change say? They naively cited materials from the so-called “nonpartisan” Justice at Stake Campaign. Maybe they don’t know that this is one of the far-left “public interest groups” funded by hedge-fund billionaire George Soros. They also bought the line that an appointment process with “retention elections” some time down the road takes the politics out of the process.
The good news is that the Legislature will have to follow the Commission in approving this constitutional change. Then another blue-ribbon panel—the voters of Nevada—will get to have their say.
The Closed Door $ociety
March 27, 2008
No sooner can you say “Soros” than an indignant letter-to-the-editor appears in The Wall Street Journal from Ann Beeson, U.S. director of the George Soros-funded Open Society Institute complaining about Collin Levy’s recent exposure of the cynicism and money behind the well-heeled campaign for the“merit selection” of judges.
She makes a stunning claim:
“Unlike current opponents of voter-enacted merit selection plans, we do not claim to have a monopoly on wisdom when it comes to questions of whether judicial elections or merit selection deliver better judges to the bench.”
Well, actually, that is exactly what proponents of merit selection claim, many of whom are funded by Soros.
They argue that a handful of politicians and wealthy trial lawyers who dominate the bar will be able to make judicial selections behind closed doors with Olympian detachment.
I don’t deny that democracy is sometimes not pretty. But its grandeur and its flaws are on public display. If the merit selection of judges is prettier, it is only because we can’t see the ugly politics occurring behind the closed doors.
Hey, here’s an idea for truth in advertising…Perhaps Soros should call his organization the Closed Door $ociety.
“Merit Selection” Or Politics Without Voters
March 26, 2008
As a euphemism, the “merit selection” of judges is a doozey. It conjures up images of a committee of serious experts making careful, discerning selections while chewing the stems of their reading glasses. In practice, merit selection is the 21st Century equivalent of a smoke-filled room.
This was brought home by a powerful Philadelphia Daily News piece earlier this week by Marina Angel, a professor of law at Temple University. She exposes what is behind the campaign by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts to replace judicial elections with “merit selection.”
Ms. Angel reveals that the proposed 14-member nominating committee that supposedly would take politics out of judicial elections would include eight members appointed by the governor and the majority and minority leaders of the state Senate and House. It would also include six people appointed by a Noah’s Ark of special interests—a union, a professional organization, a business organization, a public-safety organization, a civic group, and a law-school dean.
So much for taking the politics of out of judicial selections! We didn’t just fall off the turnip truck, sports fans. There will be politics aplenty…but it will be all behind the scenes instead of out in the open, with the politicians brokering deals, doling out favors, negotiating quid pro quos…And who is left out? Joe Voter in Altoona, Philly, Scranton, Pittsburgh – and every town and neighborhood in Pennsylvania.
What we would have, of course, is pure politics, only without those pesky voters and difficult elections to manage.
Ms. Angel examines all the arguments against judicial elections—they’re too costly, they’re too noisy, they’re too contentious and partisan—and asks:
“Why stop at taking away the right to vote for appellate judges? The same arguments can be made by a group to be called ‘Pennsylvanians for Modern Democracy’ for all elections.”
This is something to keep in mind as Tennessee, Arizona, Virginia and other states debate the merits and demerits of “merit selection.”
Attempting to Deny Democracy in Wisconsin
March 25, 2008
Opponents of state judicial elections can often accomplish the trick of sounding high-minded while opposing democracy. They have a point of sorts—if all the noise and heat of a political campaign strikes you as beneath the dignity of the American people. To the rest of us, it looks like the raucous political dialogue of a still-free people.
The election between Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler (who previously lost his bid to get on the high court by a landslide and had to be appointed by the state’s Democratic governor) and Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman (a respected former state prosecutor), is turning out to be one of the most spirited judicial races in recent memory. Charges are made. Counter-charges are made. And it gets worse: The candidates’ ads say bad things about one another!
Reminds me of the old line from Casablanca… “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”
In response to the outrage—the outrage!—of criticizing the record of a sitting judge, a self-described “nonpartisan” watchdog group called the Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee (WJCIC) is pretending to perform the solemn duty of calling Judge Gableman to task.
Fortunately, a Wall Street Journal piece on the race revealed that the “watchdog” is more of a trial lawyer lapdog. Formed in December, it is chaired by the president of the Wisconsin Bar Association. Of the committee’s nine members, eight are Democrats, many with close ties to the governor.
Not surprisingly, the WJCIC homepage features a “Helpful Link” to Justice at Stake, the George Soros-backed organization that’s attempting to replace judicial elections across the country with “judicial selection committees” comprised of legal elites, typically trial lawyers.
In the meantime, the election moves forward. A justice’s record will be scrutinized by the voters before he can enjoy a 10-year-term. The people of Wisconsin actually get to hear another candidate debate him. The entire state knows about the election and voters are engaged.
The real scandal is not an election. It is those who would give a justice a decade on the high court with nothing but a nod and a wink from the trial bar.
Fact, Fiction - and Financing From Soros
March 24, 2008
In a contest of fact versus fiction, fiction has lately been getting the upper hand.
You can see this in movies - the latest example being Michael Clayton in which trial lawyers are portrayed as Don Quixotes jousting with evil corporations. A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed took John Grisham to task for The Appeal, a novel that picks up the latest line in trial lawyer apologia by portraying judicial elections as a way for corporations to “buy” judges.
For balance, The Journal followed up with a piece on Saturday from James Sample at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law packed with anecdotes and opinion surveys that see corporate donations to state judicial elections as “justice for sale.”
If this logic holds, then the Brennan Center itself should explain how it can remain uninfluenced by funding from George Soros’s Open Society Institute. And is the fact that the Brennan Center’s chief partner in tracking judicial elections - the Soros-funded group Justice at Stake, the lead dog in opposing state judicial elections - a coincidence?
Critics of judicial elections claim to remove politics by “merit selection.” This does not remove politics from the system. It hides it. On the other hand, a 2005 study by a Harvard researcher found that the direct election of judges is a stronger check on corruption than those selected behind closed doors.
Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others. The same might also be said about private financing of judicial elections - it has its flaws, but it’s the best way of ensuring that citizens stay engaged in the judicial selection process and preserves their ability to hold judges accountable for their rulings.
A Chip off the Ol’ Block
March 22, 2008
Like father, like son…
An Important Victory for Minnesota Voters
March 21, 2008
A proposed amendment to strip Minnesota citizens of their constitutional right to vote for state judges is “dead” – at least for now – according to MinnPost.com.
The Minnesota constitution declares that state judges “shall be elected by the voters.” Yet some of those occupying Minnesota’s legal establishment dislike the inconvenient fact that judges have to win the approval of the voters.
So they’ve been pushing a constitutional amendment that would replace “democracy” (i.e. the will of the voters) with a “merit selection” plan. Under this scheme:
” … all judges would be appointed their first term by the governor who would pick from a list prepared by a special panel of lawyers and non-lawyers. During their terms, they would be screened by a citizen-lawyer committee which could recommend to voters the retention of the judges. Those judges would have no opponents. Voters would give a thumbs up or down on retention.” (emphasis added)
There’s a theory at work here that’s unspoken, but just beneath the surface: Proponents of merit selection think ordinary people aren’t qualified to pass judgment on judges. Thankfully, the authors of Minnesota’s constitution and Governor Tim Pawlenty believe otherwise.
Even Billionaires Can Be Deadbeats
March 21, 2008
Is Dickie Scruggs’ criminal activity draining his bulging wallet? Roger Parloff over at Fortune magazine’s Legal Pad writes that a Washington, DC legal firm has dumped two Mississippi clients who were in cahoots with Scruggs and his attack on insurance companies over post-Katrina claims.
Scruggs had been paying the legal bills of Cori and Kerri Rigsby. But the Zuckerman Spaeder law firm dropped them, citing “the inability of the Rigsbys and others [i.e. Scruggs]” to pay future legal bills or even “adequately satisfy existing fee and expense obligations.”
Parloff notes that even after his recent guilty plea over bribing a state judge, Scruggs’ is still racking up legal bills to fight other criminal charges – including an attempt to bribe another judge in Mississippi and a criminal contempt charge in Alabama.
Will Democrats Return Milberg Weiss Dirty Money?
March 21, 2008
The Washington Examiner reports that convicted trial lawyers from the disgraced law firm Milberg Weiss funneled thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
“Clinton received $21,971 and Obama $5,300 from four senior partners of the firm or their spouses. Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain got no money from the firm’s four senior partners.”
Federal prosecutors say Milberg Weiss raked in more than $200 million in tainted legal fees from cases where they paid illegal kickbacks to plaintiff frontmen.
The Felony Bar
March 21, 2008
Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial page asks an interesting question:
“In the wake of the felony admissions of Weiss and Lerach and last week’s bribery plea by Dickie Scruggs, where are the cries in Congress to crack down on these wealthy wrongdoers who abused their positions of legal trust.”
Congressional committees habitually parade CEOs before the TV cameras, where Members compete to express the most indignation over some perceived corporate wrongdoing. But not a peep about corrupt trial lawyers who cost American shareholders – these days, basically anyone with an IRA or 401K – hundreds of millions of dollars.
As Bob Dole would say, “where’s the outrage?”