The Assault on Democracy in Wisconsin
April 30, 2008
Wisconsin’s “progressive” newspaper – The Capital Times weighs in with an editorial slamming merit selection. Money quote:
… elite newspapers and organizations are proposing the replacement of an elected judiciary with a bench filled by political appointees. This so-called “merit selection” of judges blames the citizens for warping the process and suggests voters ought no longer be allowed to select judges. That’s wrong. “Merit selection” is not just an assault on democracy, it’s a cop-out.
Although we disagree with the Times proposed solution (public financing) it’s refreshing to see someone on the left standing up for democracy against elitism.
South Carolina Voters, Make Your Voices Heard
April 30, 2008
FITSNews reports that the South Carolina Civil Justice Coalition (SCCJC) is stepping up its effort to support the drive to reform the state’s warped workers’ compensation system, which has been turned into an money machine for the local trial bar.
According to the organization, South Carolina has lost over 12,800 jobs because small business owners had to pay $276 million more for workers’ comp. premiums.
SCHotline has a copy of the mailing that the SCCJC is sending out.
I think it’s time for SC voters who value jobs to call their state senators. Phone numbers can be found here.
Update From Tennessee
April 29, 2008
Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen is threatening to veto legislation that fails to open the state’s judicial selection commission to the public. The Knoxville News has the story. Bredesen says he wants closed door meetings thrown open to the public. Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey wants to reduce the power of lawyers in picking judges.
State Rep. Stacey Campfield has the argument down in this blog post. Money quote:
I still wonder how people can support anything but sending it back to the people to pick who they want from an open field of candidates. In my mind, the yes/no retention vote is an abomination.
It may have been judged “legal” but I doubt that that system is anything close to what our state’s founding fathers had in mind when they said, “The judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state.”
The Questionable Case for “Merit Selection”
April 28, 2008
The push to replace democratic judicial elections in Pennsylvania with a Judicial Selection Star Chamber – where a group comprised mostly of lawyers meets behind closed doors to pick judges – seems to be on the defensive. A recent op-ed in the Philadelphia Daily News by attorney Gerald McOscar pointing out the problems with this scheme has elicited a lengthy response from Shira Goodman, Associate Director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, which inadvertently exposes the crumbling intellectual foundation supporting PMC’s plan.
First, Goodman protests that the proposed plan “would implement merit selection only for the three appellate courts.” In other words, those who want to protect democratic elections shouldn’t worry because voters would lose their constitutional right to vote for judges who sit only on the most important courts. … but we’d still be able to decide which judges would adjudicate traffic tickets. Thanks, but hardly reassuring.
Second, Goodman claims “judges are different from other public officials” in that they “are sworn to act impartially and faithfully uphold and apply the law” regardless of their personal views or the views of their contributors. Of course, there is no evidence given that appointed judges are more independent than elected judges – in fact, a scholarly study published by the University of Chicago Law School suggests just the opposite.
Plus, as everyone knows, judges in recent decades have routinely strayed from simply applying the law and now habitually assert their own political views by inserting themselves into economic and social questions that were once the domain of elected legislatures. Judges that exceed their authority should be held accountable – and the best way to ensure judicial accountability is through judicial elections, as the authors of Pennsylvania’s Constitution well understood.
Third, Goodman suggests that the right to vote is protected because only the people of Pennsylvania themselves can enact the constitutional amendment required to abolish judicial elections. This view represents a serious misunderstanding of one of the most fundamental principles of American democracy – namely the duty of government to protect the rights of the minority.
Even if a “majority” of Pennsylvanians can somehow be persuaded to give up their constitutional right to vote for judges, so what? In our democracy, Voter A and Voter B cannot conspire to take away the rights of Voter C.
The question here isn’t who “trust[s] the voters” as Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts shallowly asserts; it’s who trusts democracy? Why are proponents of “merit selection” so afraid to let the people into the courtroom?
Why West Virginia Ranks Last
April 25, 2008
The U.S. Chamber released its valuable ranking of state lawsuit climates this week and, for the third year in a row, West Virginia brings up the rear. In response, West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw called the Chamber’s “means and methods” the same as “those Hitler used.” Hat tip to Carter Wood blogging over at PointofLaw for the heads up.
McGraw’s odious comments, of course, are nauseating, repulsive and beyond the pale. But at least he left no doubt that under his leadership West Virginia courts will remain a wholly-owned subsidiary of the state’s trial bar.
Blogger Takes On A Trial Lawyer…And Wins
April 25, 2008
Three cheers for blogger Kathleen Seidel for facing down trial lawyer Clifford Shoemaker – who specializes in suing pharmaceutical companies.
After Seidel posted an entry that exposed Shoemaker’s legal fees in 22 cases, Shoemaker filed a nuisance subpoena against her, requesting basically every piece of information related to her blog. Seidel filed a motion to quash the subpoena, which a judge recently granted.
“Merit Selection” for Governor?
April 25, 2008
Great tongue-in-cheek piece in today’s Philadelphia Daily News by attorney Gerald McOscar, but with a serious point. If so-called “merit selection” is such a great idea for choosing Pennsylvania judges why stop there?
But the more I thought about it, the more I liked the idea. In fact, why stop with judges? As long as we’re talking reform, let’s take it to the next level. Why not merit selection for all statewide elective offices? Broad-based commissions for governor and regional broad-based commissions for lawmakers.
Heh. How about commissions for selecting the school board, city council members, and other offices? Bottomline: people treasure their right to vote and won’t stand for secret selection commissions replacing that right.
More Trial Lawyers on Trial
April 24, 2008
Michigan trial lawyer Geoffrey Fieger gets his day in court today on charges he “illegally recruited 64 employees, vendors, friends and relatives to contribute $127,000 to John Edwards’ 2004 presidential campaign and reimbursed them from law firm coffers.”
Federal prosecutors have charged Fieger and his law partner with “conspiracy, making illegal campaign contributions” and causing Edwards to file false FEC reports. Fieger also faces additional charges of “obstruction of justice for allegedly trying to conceal an incriminating memo from a federal grand jury, trying to shift blame for the scheme to his deceased law partner and trying to influence the testimony of two grand jury witnesses.”
Fieger could face up to 15 years in prison and a $500,000 for the two sets of charges. Will Fieger join fellow trial lawyers Bill Lerach, Melvyn Weiss and Dickie Scruggs in trading pinstripe suits for prison jumpsuits?
Chamber Out With List of Nation’s Best and Worst Legal Systems
April 23, 2008
Mississippi, Louisiana, and West Virginia are home to the worst legal environments in the nation, according to the 2008 rankings released today by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform. The survey results are being announced in Louisiana where 89% of state business owners say there are too many frivolous and unfair lawsuits and 69% of Louisiana business owners want their legislators to do something about it.The Chamber’s annual list provides a valuable overview of how fairly states treat corporate defendants in the courtroom.
Trial Bar Lobby Launches Pre-Emptive Attack
The Chamber’s survey sent the trial bar’s lobbying arm in Washington into full panic mode. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America (now calling itself the American Association of Justice … or is it the Justice League?) launched a preemptive strike the day before the study was even released.
It’s been a tough year to be a trial lawyer – what with the criminal convictions of three Trial Bar Hall of Famers (Bill Lerach, Melvyn Weiss and Dickie Scruggs). No wonder their lobbyists are trying to hide behind a new name.
Recusal Refusal…
April 22, 2008
The Brennan Center is out with a report that proposes making it easier for trial lawyers to push judges out of their cases through recusal motions.
The Legal Times blog lays out the case: “When judicial candidates accept campaign donations or make campaign pronouncements that might affect their impartiality in future cases, what can be done?”
Of course, there’s no evidence to support the calumny that judges who accept campaign contributions or share their views with voters on judicial philosophy can’t be impartial. But there is a common theme to this and other proposals to reform our state courts: Give lawyers more control over the process by shutting the people out of it. Judicial selection commissions take control away from voters and put it in the hands of lawyers. Recusal reform proposals, would for all intents and purposes, end campaigns and voter participation and give lawyers more control over who hears their cases. It’s the incumbent judge protection scheme. When lawyers choose, voters lose.
The ultimate way to force a judge to recuse himself from a case is democracy. If voters don’t believe a judge can be impartial, they can vote him or her off the court. We don’t need other lawyers or commissions of unelected elites to make the decision for us.