Where’s The Merit?
August 29, 2008
Our friends over at JudgesonMerit recently posted a letter on their website responding to a Wall Street Journal editorial criticizing “merit” selection that the Journal decided not to run. It’s worth examining because it reveals the weak foundations supporting this scheme to deprive citizens of their right to vote for state judges.
The letter begins by suggesting that “merit” selection will cure “many of the infirmities of elective systems.” One of the “infirmities” of democracy that JudgesonMerit (run by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts) wants to protect us from is the prospect of judges raising money for campaigns – funds which might come “from the very same lawyers, organizations and special interest groups” that may argue before the bench. But the cure is far worse than the disease.
“Merit” selection would take away the constitutional right to choose state judges from millions of voters and hand it over to a tiny commission dominated by legal special interests. Under the proposal JudgesonMerit supports in Pennsylvania for example, at least half of the judicial selection panel must be lawyers. In other “merit” selection states, these commissioners typically are appointed by the state trial lawyers association, the state bar and other powerful legal groups. In other words, “merit” selection trades the possibility that lawyers may have some impact over our courts through campaign contributions with the guarantee that legal special interests will control who sits on the bench. Read more
Battleground Missouri
August 28, 2008
Gavel Grab – the blog of the George Soros-funded outfit Justice at Stake – and other proponents of letting judicial Star Chamber’s choose judges are keeping close tabs on Missouri these days. Just last week, the state’s judicial selection commission sent a slate of three candidates to Gov. Matt Blunt to fill a state Supreme Court vacancy. The governor now has 60 days to pick from this list or the judicial selection commission will make the final decision.
Missouri was the first state to end democratic elections for judges in favor of “merit” selection – where a small panel of lawyers meets behind closed doors to pick judges. The original idea was to take partisan “politics” out of judicial selection – but by this measure, the commission has been an abysmal failure.
Just last year, Gov. Blunt publicly tangled with the commissioners – including Chief Justice Laura Denvir Smith, who chairs the nominating panel. Gov. Blunt wanted judicial candidates who would interpret the law rather than legislate from the bench. But Missouri’s seven-member judicial selection commission – where trial lawyers hold a controlling majority – balked, nominating instead activist judges who did not share the governor’s judicial philosophy. Read more
No Merit for Virginia
August 27, 2008
An editorial from the Roanoke Times calls for reforming Virginia’s judicial selection process that makes the process “free of political influence” – but then promotes the one system that ensures that powerful special interest groups will control who sits on the bench.
Right now, Virginia judges are chosen by the General Assembly. When the Assembly can’t agree – which often happens when control of the chambers is divided – either the governor or circuit judges make the nomination, depending on which court has a vacancy.
To replace this “dysfunctional” system, the Roanoke Times supports a “merit” selection scheme – where a small group, usually dominated by lawyers, meets in secret to pick judges. The Times bemoans the fact that judges today are “beholden to lawmakers for getting and keeping their jobs.” But isn’t it preferable – not to mention more democratic – for judges to be responsible to elected representatives chosen by the people, rather than having them be responsible to a completely unelected, unaccountable panel controlled by legal special interests?
In state after state that has experimented with secret/merit selection, the makeup of the judicial nominating commissions are determined by special interest groups such as the state trial lawyers association and the state bar association. Far from freeing judicial selection from “political influence,” these Star Chambers merely move politics behind closed doors, away from public oversight and scrutiny. Read more
More Loony Lawsuits
August 26, 2008
You drink five margaritas; hop on a train in an alcohol-induced stupor; then jump off and wrench your ankle after figuring out you’re on the wrong train. What do you do? You sue! Overlawyered.com has the story.
The Scruggs Saga (Cont’d)
August 26, 2008
Fortune magazine’s Roger Parloff takes an in-depth look at the campaign by Mississippi tort king Dickie Scruggs to destroy State Farm with a barrage of Hurricane Katrina-related lawsuits and efforts by State Farm to fight back against Scruggs’ underhanded tactics. (Hat tip: Y’All Politics)
“State Farm now alleges that Scruggs manufactured portions of his case against State Farm; induced State Farm insiders to violate their contractural duties; illegally broke into State Farm’s password-protected computer database; tampered with his own witnesses’ or clients’ computers to destroy evidence; compensated witnesses in unethical ways; violated one court’s injunction; and violated another court’s confidentiality orders.”
Scruggs currently resides in federal prison after pleading guilty to bribing a Mississippi judge. Parloff reports that a federal grand jury is now investigating whether Scruggs bribed a second judge. With this new round of alleged illegal activities, the Scruggs Saga promises to continue in Mississippi for years and years.
Who’s Really Afraid of Public Opinion?
August 25, 2008
A story in the Lansing State Journal leads off with the usual gnashing of teeth about the rise in campaign spending for state judicial races. After attacking me, a flak for the Michigan trial lawyers association claims that rule-of-law judges can’t win through public opinion, so business groups need to buy their seats.
Funny, but wasn’t it just Michigan Democrats – and their union and trial lawyer cronies – who hatched a scheme to seize control of the state’s courts through a phony constitutional amendment because they knew they couldn’t defeat rule-of-law judges through the ballot box? And wasn’t that scheme – which the Detroit News labeled a sleazy “power grab” – just declared unconstitutional? Or am I mistaken?
No Merit
August 25, 2008
In a follow-up on its August 14 editorial, the Wall Street Journal brings out more guns against the plan by the American Bar Association and other George Soros-funded groups like Justice at Stake to end state judicial elections and allow lawyer-dominated panels to decide who sits on the bench.
Far from taking “politics” out of the courts, “merit” selection schemes just move the politics into the backroom, out of the public eye. Using Missouri as an example, the Journal notes:
Though the Missouri Plan is supposed to keep politics out of the process, it has instead transferred power from voters to state bar associations and legal groups that control the judicial commission. The result is a system that’s contentious and opaque – and has tipped the state courts steadily to the left.
Of course, tipping the courts to the left is exactly the point for outfits like Justice at Stake. They know that the activist judges they support have a difficult time winning support from the people voters – so they take the people out of the equation. Read more
Interesting Advice from Buffet
August 25, 2008
On Friday, I came across some interesting investment advice from Warren Buffet. In an interview on CNBC, the billionaire investor (and Obama supporter) recommended that those who gave money to John Edward’s presidential campaign should bring a class action suit against the trial-lawyer-cum-presidential-candidate-cum-all-around-cad for campaigning under false pretenses:
“I mean, [Edwards] knew that, in effect, he wouldn’t be elected president…the story was out there…it might be kind of interesting if somebody, some contributor, would bring a class action suit on behalf of all these people who essentially were led to send money to a many under totally false circumstances, false pretenses…I’ve seen a lot of class action suits than this particular case.”
It would, as Buffet’s interviewer noted, be deliciously ironic.
I’ve always felt Edwards was on to something with his “two Americas” shtick, but it isn’t the division between the haves and the have-nots, it’s the division between those, like Edwards, who sue for a living and those who get sued. It would be nice to see him “feel the pain” of the other half.
Grisham Redux
August 25, 2008
Stephen Vaden turns John Grisham upside down in a terrific piece in yesterday’s Nashville Tennessean. In Grisham’s latest novel of tort lawyer hero worship, a Mississippi chemical company helps elect a pro-business justice to the state’s Supreme Court with the expectation he’ll overturn a jury verdict against them. But as Vaden skillfully points out:
… [in] the current headlines emanating from Mississippi … one finds an almost complete role reversal.
Vaden, of course, is referring to Mississippi tort kingpin Dickie Scruggs, who will be trading his pinstripes for prison stripes after admitting to bribing a judge to approve juicy legal fees. But Vaden isn’t just being ironic; there’s a critical policy lesson here as well.
Grisham has used his fame to push for abolishing judicial elections and hand this power over to a small group of lawyers who meet behind closed doors, completely free of public scrutiny, to pick judges. As Vaden rightly concludes:
Rather than remove the influence of interested trial attorneys from the selection process, Grisham’s plan calcifies it and removes the appointments process from the realm of normal public debate. It does not eliminate corruption so much as make a more insidious form of it possible.
Under so-called “merit” selection schemes, the Dickie Scruggses won’t need to bribe judges – they’ll get to pick them in the first place! But that’s a novel we’ll never read from John Grisham.
Will Legal Reform Suvive In Ohio?
August 22, 2008
David Owsiany at the Buckeye Institute Blog has an interesting post on efforts by the trial bar to rollback key provisions of recently enacted reform legislation. A recent 5-2 decision by the Ohio Supreme Court upheld reasonable limits on runaway pain and suffering awards. But two of the justices in the majority are up for re-election this fall – and they’re sure to be targeted by the powerful trial lawyers lobby.
Ohio is one of several states in the Midwest suffering from a slowing economy and loss of manufacturing jobs. Legal reform – which ensures a fair and balanced court system which is not controlled by trial lawyers – helps make Ohio a more attractive place for businesses to invest and create new jobs.
The people of Ohio have a choice to make this fall: Do they want judges who interpret the law and uphold legislative reforms? Or do they want judges who will legislate from the bench by overturning reforms that are critical to Ohio’s economic future?