Merit Selection Proponents Show Their Slippery Hand
May 22, 2008
Shira Goodman has a revealing post over at the JudgesonMerit.org blog about the fight to abolish democratic election of judges in Pennsylvania and let a lawyer-dominated committee pick judges behind closed doors.
Goodman leads off by praising the skill, experience and fairness of many Pennsylvania appellate judges. But, Goodman proclaims, “they reached the bench despite the electoral process, not because of it. We’d get a lot more good judges under Merit Selection, which is designed to bring such people to the bench.”
This conclusion is based on the belief that Goodman knows a good judge and the people do not. And of course, Goodman cannot produce a single argument that even suggests - let alone proves - that so-called “merit selection” produces superior judges. But the arrogance to believe that ordinary citizens are somehow inferior in their judgment to a room full of lawyers is truly breathtaking.
Goodman combines this arrogance with a deeply flawed understanding of representative government. She claims “Elections are the best way to select presidents, governors, mayors, senators, and representatives - public officials who represent specific constituencies and advocate for identified policies.” This is nonsense. Unless I’m mistaken, there’s no Senator from the Pennsylvania Bar Association in Harrisburg, no Representative from the Pennsylvania State Education Association. Governor Rendell serves at the pleasure of the people, not the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce.
Our presidents, governors, mayors, senators and representatives are not elected to represent “specific constituencies” - they are elected to represent all the people, including citizens who didn’t vote for them. The idea that citizens are competent enough to elect lawmakers who write laws and executives who enforce laws, but too ignorant to elect judges who decide cases under the law is elitist and undemocratic.
Pass the brie and chardonnay please.
Elites have always been agitated by the fact that their influence over government is not commensurate with their inflated sense of self-importance. Let them eat cake.
In the end, “merit selection” is not about judicial independence or finding superior judges; it’s about denying citizens a crucial right under representative government and increasing the power of a small handful of legal elites.
When lawyers choose…the people lose.
He Did It For The Kids…
May 21, 2008
Trial lawyer Geoffrey Fieger took the witness stand yesterday in his criminal trial, pleading with the jury to let him off the hook because of his work to help the powerless take on big corporations. Fieger is famous, of course, for comparing American business to Nazis and other outrages in pursuit of lottery-sized verdicts.
Fieger and his law partner Ven Johnson were indicted for illegally funneling more than $100,000 in tainted campaign contributions to John Edwards’ 2004 presidential campaign.
“I wouldn’t start … after the birth of my second child to become a criminal,” Fieger told jurors. All bets are off on what was OK for Fieger after the birth of his first child.
Fieger continued his testimony today and is expected back on the stand tomorrow.
Tennessee’s Judicial Selection Star Chamber on Life Support
May 21, 2008
Despite a full-court press from the powerful trial lawyers’ lobby, the Tennessee legislature last night decided not to reauthorize the state’s judicial selection commission – where lawyers meet in secret to choose judges. Blogger Ned Williams of Wisdom is Vindicated has the story.
This is a huge defeat for the trial bar, which fought ferociously to maintain its iron grip on the judicial selection process. Now maybe the citizens of Tennessee will see their constitutional right to vote for judges restored. The battle is not over, and voters need to join the fight.
For more, check out the Nashville Post and Rob Huddleston’s blog, Voluntarily Conservative.
More from TN
May 20, 2008
Another law professor has called on the Tennessee legislature to dump the state’s “unconstitutional” judicial selection commission. In today’s Nashville City Paper, David Danner – an adjunct professor of business law at Tennessee State University – writes that Tennessee’s judicial selection commission has turned the state constitution “upside down.”
Judges in Tennessee are chosen
… by an elite, insular committee process wherein voters are not permitted to participate until well after the eventual nominee dons a black robe deciding court cases.
Will Tennessee Dump Its Judicial Selection Star Chamber?
May 20, 2008
Blogger Bill Hobbs has an important post today that helps expose the ethical conflicts behind the lobbying by Tennessee’s trial lawyers to save the state’s judicial selection star chamber.
Betty Anderson, wife of House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh, has been trolling the state’s Capitol on behalf of the Tennessee Bar Association, but never registered as a lobbyist.
Tennessee - The Latest
May 19, 2008
Ned Williams over at Wisdom is Vindicated has a post today on the latest fallout from Tennessee’s judicial selection debate.
Oklahoma At A Competitive Disadvantage
May 19, 2008
Fair and Biased, the blog run by Steve Fair, reports today on the trial bar’s success at not only blocking tort reform in Oklahoma, but worker’s comp reform, as well.
Two major issues that were not resolved this legislature session were tort reform and workers comp reform. Interrelated, they are two issues opposed by the powerful trial lawyer lobby….Once again Oklahoma is placed at a competitive disadvantage vs. surrounding states in recruiting business and industry and new jobs to the state because Democrats want to appease the powerful trial lawyer lobby.
But Fair also gives us a glimmer of hope:
With the distinct likelihood of Republicans taking over the State Senate in November, all I can say is- Wait till next year!
Justice At Stake Slinks Into Michigan
May 19, 2008
Legal reporter L.L. Brasier of The Detroit Free Press had a hand-wringer yesterday about campaign spending among candidates for Michigan’s 6th Circuit Court judicial race. The article frets that this year’s race could be one of the “most contested … in Oakland County history.” Funny, but I thought competition among candidates was a good thing in a democracy.
At any rate, the main concern raised by the article is the amount of money expected to be spent in pursuit of a seat on the Oakland County bench. In the article, Braiser quotes Justice at Stake, swallowing hook, line and sinker the notion that it’s just another non-partisan, good government group.
There are a few facts Braiser and The Free Press ought to know as they do their reporting:
1. Justice at Stake is hardly non-partisan. The outfit is bankrolled by billionaire hedge fund kingpin George Soros and is part of a campaign that is spending millions to try to abolish the right of citizens to choose judicial candidates in democratic elections. The reason? They want activist judges on the bench who can’t get elected if the people have any say in the matter.
2. While recent judicial elections have gotten more expensive, there is no evidence that appointed judges are more independent than elected judges. In fact, a study by three legal scholars published by the University of Chicago Law School found that “[j]udges subject to partisan election have the highest independence.” For more on this study, read here.
3. Expect Justice at Stake to come out with a public opinion survey soon that purports to show how “concerned” Michigan residents are about the “perception” that judges are unduly influenced by campaign contributions.
Of course, Justice at Stake is free to spend Mr. Soros’ millions however they see fit. But Michigan voters need to know what their real game is – and the Michigan press has a duty to report it.
Tort Reform Working In Texas
May 19, 2008
Does tort reform work? Look at Texas.
Joseph Nixon of the Texas Public Policy Foundation has an important piece in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal reviewing the stunning turnaround in the Lone Star State after the legislature passed medical liability reform in 2003 and 2005. The highlights:
Greater Access to Care… While doctors are fleeing other states due to the medical liability crisis, over “the past three years, some 7,000 doctors have flooded into Texas…”
Lower Premiums… “…one of the largest malpractice insurance companies in the state [has] slashed premiums by 35%, saving doctors some $217 million [in premiums] over four years.”
A Competitive Insurance Market… While many insurance companies have stopped writing policies in states with a poor liability climate, in Texas “over 30 companies [are] competing for business.”
Spending $ on Patients, Not Lawyers… Thanks to tort reform, Christus Health, a non-profit health provider, has “saved $100 million that it otherwise would have spent fending off bogus lawsuits or paying higher insurance premiums. Every dollar saved was reinvested in helping poor patients.”
Amazing what can happen when a state’s health care system is designed to benefit patients, not lawyers.
Broken Promises Set Back Tort Reform in Oklahoma
May 19, 2008
Despite campaigning on promises to fix Oklahoma’s tort system, Gov. Brad Henry has again broken his vow to curb frivolous lawsuits. Last week, the Oklahoma House voted 55-42 to override Henry’s veto – but fell 13 votes short of the necessary 2/3rds.
William Pitts of the Journal Record reviews the history of Gov. Henry’s broken tort reform promises.