Worth a Look
July 29, 2010
Kevin Underhill, a partner at Shook, Hardy and Bacon, runs a great blog called Lowering the Bar dedicated to demonstrating that “legal humor” isn’t an oxymoron. Some of the most recent gems include this post on a lawsuit against a store that “failed to warn the plaintiff that playing with a sharp sword … would result in the plaintiff slicing his hand.” (h/t Walter Olson) Then there’s the $4.25 million verdict in the case of the missing pet turkeys in South Carolina. You gotta read it to believe it.
Rolling Out The Big Guns in Nevada
July 28, 2010
Another column in the Las Vegas Review-Journal by Jane Ann Morrison, this time announcing that former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (surprise!) will be using “her powers of persuasion to help convince Nevadans this change [merit selection] could improve the quality of Nevada judges.”
How will “merit” selection improve the quality of judges? Because, instead of voters picking judges through democratic elections, “a commission of judges, lawyers and lay people” will do the job for them! Read more
Mississippi’s AG Cavorting with Trial Lawyers
July 28, 2010
Today’s WSJ editorial page lifts the curtain on the way Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood’s cozy relationship with the trial bar.
Democratic Judicial Elections Work in Ohio
July 26, 2010
Our friends at Gavel Grab have a little post lauding several Ohio judicial candidates for agreeing to abide by Marquess of Queensberry rules in the upcoming election. Chief Justice Eric Brown, Justice Maureen O’Connor, Justice Judith Lanzinger and appellate Judge Mary Jane Trapp all signed a “clean-campaign pledge,” promising to focus their campaigns on experience and credentials. Candidates are also supposed to disavow any ads from outside groups that “impugn the integrity” of an opponent.
Of course, the greatest guarantors of “clean” judges are the people themselves – who can easily vote down any judicial candidate they feel is too negative or too beholden to special interest groups. Makes you wonder why the Gavel Grabbers are so afraid of democracy when it comes to picking judges.
No Merit for Nevada
July 23, 2010
Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Jane Ann Morrison rolls out the standard boilerplate for why Nevadans ought to give up their right to choose their public servants on the bench in democratic elections and turn the job over to a “merit” panel – where a small cabal dominated by elite lawyers makes all the decisions.
One of the main objections seems to be that judicial races have gotten more expensive – yet she goes on to brag that the “merit” crowd is going to dump $700,000 into the campaign to promote its cause. What’s lacking here isn’t just a sense of irony, but a sense of proportion. Read more
Beware of Calls to Change Michigan Judicial Elections
July 22, 2010
A recent Lansing State Journal editorial called upon Michigan voters to “junk” state Supreme Court elecitons.
Michigan Supreme Court Justice Robert Young has weighed in with an excellent commentary taking issue with the LSJ and others who advocate eliminating democratic judicial elections such as George Soros and former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
I recommend reading Justice Young’s piece in its entirety, but here are a few gems: Read more
Defending the First Amendment in Judicial Elections
July 21, 2010
Kentucky can no longer restrict the First Amendment rights of judicial candidates by forbidding them from disclosing their party affiliations or barring them from soliciting campaign funds, according to a recent ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote for the majority:
“While we do not question Kentucky’s right to select judges through popular elections, the Commonwealth cannot exempt itself from the demands of the First Amendment in the process.”
“There is room for debate about whether the election of state court judges is a good idea or a bad one. Yet this is no room for debate that, if a State opts to select its judges through popular elections, it must comply with the First Amendment in doing so.” Read more
The Politics of Retention Elections in Iowa
July 20, 2010
Retention elections, when combined with “merit” selection, are supposed to remove the stench of “politics” from the process of choosing and approving judges – or so we are assured by Hedge Fund Titans for a Non-Democratic Judiciary (aka Justice at Stake). But that only works when the people fulfill the role the “merit” selection crowd has assigned them: lemmings dutifully willing to rubber stamp the decisions made by elite lawyers who typically hold the privileged position of choosing judges behind closed doors.
But a funny thing happened in Iowa several years ago – the people revolted! Read more
Give Me Pennsylvania Judges Over Iraqi Judges Any Day
July 19, 2010
Today’s Philadelphia Inquirer prints an op-ed by a law student arguing that Pennsylvania has a lot to learn from Iraq – yes, Iraq – when it comes to selecting judges.
In Pennsylvania, you see, judges are chosen by ordinary citizens in open, democratic elections. How backward and benighted!
Iraq, on the other hand, is blessed to have a judicial selection system created in large part, we’re told, by “U.S. State Department officials.” Read more
Trial Bar Tax Break?
July 15, 2010
Today’s WSJ editorial page reports on news coming of the trial bar’s annual confab currently underway in Vancouver, Canada. Apparently the trial bar lobby’s head of federal government relations proclaimed that the US Treasury Department will soon order a tax break for contingency fee lawsuits.
Whether the tax break will take the same form as the legislation that failed to pass Congress last year - proposed giving a 40% tax subsidy for up-front litigaiton cost - remains to be seen… the boys at Treasury are giving the “no comment” line.