MO Supreme Court Adopts New Judicial Selection Rule
December 17, 2009
For years opponents of open, democratic, judicial elections, have pointed to the state of Missouri and the so-called “Missouri Plan” as the shining example of the proper way to select judges: behind closed doors, without any involvement of the grubby masses, and with no sunlight shining on the cloaked machinations that lead to judicial appointments.
This week, the Missouri State Supreme voted to crack open the door on this secretive process.
The Associated Press reports that the state Supreme Court has adopted a new rule that will force state judicial nominating panels to make public all the names of the people that are interviewed for judicial openings.
Hardly a show stopper…but a move toward transparency.
To review, in Missouri, openings for the state Supreme Court are filled by the merit selection process: a judicial nominating panel interviews applicants, forwards three candidates to the governor, the governor chooses one. This process also applies to appellate courts and to trial courts in a handful of Missouri counties (Greene, Jackson, Clay, Platt and St. Louis). Other Missouri counties rely upon open, democratic judicial elections.
American Courthouse readers are by now familiar with the drill: the Missouri panel is comprised of seven members and is dominated by trial lawyers, legal elites and other and legal special interests. In fact, according to Better Courts for Missouri, ”all of the lawyer members under the ‘non-partisan’ judicial selection system are or were on the Board of Governors of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys.” They meet behind closed doors and their interviews, deliberations and discussions are kept secret. Only when the star chamber has made its fincal decision are the nominees’ names made available to the public.
So secretive is the process that even stalwart merit selection proponent Sandra Day O’Connor told a Missouri legal audience earlier this year that the system wasn’t working:
You can’t have secret proceedings.
More reform is needed - and change may be coming. Better Courts for Missouri is pushing ballot initiatives for the 2010 election that would overhaul the entire system by ending secret selection - a process that is as unaccountable as it is undemocratic.
Missouri trusts the people to choose legislators who make the laws and state executives who enforce them. It’s time to let voters choose the Missouri judges who interpret the laws.
ATRA Releases Annual “Judicial Hellholes” Report
December 15, 2009
It’s that time of year again — today the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) released its yearly Judicial Hellholes report. Topping the list this year:
- South Florida
- West Virginia
- Cook County, IL
- Atlantic County, NJ
- New Mexico Appellate Courts
- New York City
On ATRA’s “Watch List”
- California
- Alabama
- Gulf Coast and Rio Grande Valley, TX
- Jefferson County, MS
- And our perennial favorite: Madison County, IL
ATRA’s president, Tiger Joyce, had a good reminder for policymakers looking for ways to boost the economy and create jobs:
Every dollar spent defending against a groundless lawsuit is a dollar that won’t be spent on research and development, capital investment, worker training or job creation.
The report isn’t all bad news - included are “Points of Light” highlighting parts of the country where good reforms have been enacted and where attempts to roll-back improvements to the legal system have been beaten back, including Arizona, California, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas.
Congratulations to Tiger Joyce and his team for putting out yet another well-researched, hard-hitting report — and for reminding us of the need to keep fighting for legal reform.
The O’Connor Judicial Selection Initiative: Rule by Elites or Rule by People?
December 11, 2009
Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has started a new, “nationwide” campaign – the O’Connor Judicial Selection Initiative at the University of Denver’s Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System. The goal – surprise, surprise – is to abolish democratic elections for Supreme Court in states that still allow voters to choose judges and give that power to a panel of elites, typically controlled by lawyers. (More from the folks at Justice at Stake.)
O’Connor’s arguments were depressingly familiar:
- People are stupid … “A voter goes into the voting booth on Election Day, and they have a long list of races to vote for. When they come to the judges, they typically don’t know any of them. How are they supposed to decide?”
- Today’s judges are unqualified, unfair and partial … “What the people want and need at the end of the day is a fair and impartial judiciary, one that’s qualified, fair and impartial. It is almost impossible to get that by using popular campaign-funded elections.”
Of course, Justice O’Connor opposes the traditional democratic means for educating voters – i.e. having candidates actually speak to the people about their ideas and governing philosophies…that would sully the hands of the demi-gods who rule our courts. (To be fair, O’Connor does support the idea of having a group of lawyers evaluate a judge’s performance and then instruct people how to vote in meaningless retention elections.)
You’d also think that after casually slandering hundreds of sitting state Supreme Court justices, Justice O’Connor would provide us a list of all the judges who are not “qualified, fair and impartial.”
Really, though, it’s hard to blame Justice O’Connor for her views. I’m certain it’s extremely difficult for someone educated at one of the nation’s most prestigious law schools, who spent a long, honorable career at the highest levels of the judiciary, not to believe that she is more qualified than your average voter to determine who should sit on our courts. I’m ashamed to admit there are days when I feel that my humble political opinions should be given more weight than others’. In fact, it happens every time I watch Fox News or MSNBC.
But in my calmer moments, I’m content my vote counts for no more and no less than Justice O’Connor’s and millions of other American citizens. After all, isn’t the whole point of democracy a refutation of the notion that certain people enjoy a privileged role in choosing our leaders?
New Poll: Public Supports Tort Reform by 2:1 Margin
December 3, 2009
57% of voters want to cap the amount of money that can be awarded in a medical liability suit, according to a new Rasmussen poll (hat tip, Robert Moon):
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters nationwide favor limiting the amount of money a jury can award a plaintiff in a medical malpractice lawsuit. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 29% disagree and 14% are not sure.
Forty-seven percent (47%) believe that restricting jury awards for medical malpractice lawsuits will significantly reduce the cost of health care in the United States. Twenty-eight percent (28%) disagree, and 25% are not sure.
Democrats vs. Michigan Health Care Jobs
December 3, 2009
Today’s Detroit News ran a commentary piece I wrote, putting the spotlight on Michigan Democrats’ efforts to help their trial lawyer buddies at the expense of Michigan jobs. You can find the piece here.
Correction: Earlier PA post
December 3, 2009
Last week I did a short post commenting on an opinion piece by Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Debra Todd. In it, I mistakenly characterized a related blog post by JudgesOnMerit as an “opposing view.” David Caroline from JudgesOnMerit corrected me with the following comment:
“A World Without ACORN”
December 3, 2009
On Tuesday, Darrell Issa blasted the Obama Administration, accusing administration officials of covering up ACORN’s illegal activities. Issa leveled the charge during a forum he held to address a host of concerns surrounding ACORN–an event he convened because the Democrats in Congress have been dragging their feet, stalling a serious investigation into ACORN.
Key quote from the Washington Times‘ coverage of the event:
“The current administration is fast becoming, in reality, the war room of ACORN’s political machine,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican. “I am concerned that the era of corruption promulgated by ACORN and protected by the White House is just the beginning.”
The top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said ACORN has engaged in “illegal, partisan activities designed to help individual Democratic members.”
“This (action) goes from city councilmen to state assemblymen all the way to President Barack Obama,” he said.”
Issa expands his ACORN criticisms in a piece for the American Spectator here. In the article, entitled “A World Without ACORN,” Issa points out that ACORN’s defenders “whine” thatwithout ACORN the nation’s poor and downtrodden will have no one to help them … as if there aren’t countless other worthy organizations dedicated to doing just that.
Issa lists off dozens of other groups that are doing a fine job of helping the less fortunate and ends with this:
“Clearly, ACORN deserves to lose its tax-exempt status and has forfeited its right to receive taxpayer dollars — dollars more responsibly awarded to thousands of other worthy community-based organizations around which a cloud of criminal suspicion does not hang. Congress was right to defund ACORN, and the Obama administration is wrong in its attempt to explain away the law to keep the money funneling into ACORN’s illicit enterprise.
“Indeed, a world without ACORN would still see government resources helping the poor, keeping down home foreclosures, and opening up economic and political opportunities for those most in need. In fact, it would see those resources used more efficiently, successfully, and lawfully.”
Real Health Care Reform Must Include Tort Reform
December 1, 2009
Two excellent articles in the past few days continue to make the case that effective health care reform must include meaningful medical liability reform. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that as much as $54 billion could be saved over the next decade if Congress enacted legal reforms.
In an interview with LegalNewsLine, columnist Charles Krauthammer argues that without liability reforms the billions that could be saved are instead flushed away:
“Part is simply hemorrhaged into the legal system to benefit a few jackpot lawsuit winners and an army of extravagantly rich malpractice lawyers such as John Edwards. The rest is wasted within the medical system in the millions of unnecessary tests, procedures and referrals undertaken solely to fend off lawsuits.”
As Krauthammer points out, instead of enacting serious reforms, the health care bill passed by the House “actually penalizes states that dare ‘limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.’”
An article by Jim Copeland of the Manhattan Institute uncovers the other trial lawyer goodies hidden in the House bill. It ain’t pretty. And the Senate bill? MIA when it comes to tackling runaway medical liability premiums - there are no legal reforms to be found, just a meaningless ”sense of the Senate” provision that medical liability is an issue.
As Copeland writes,
“The trial bar could hardly have designed better bills for protecting its interests.”