Gotcha!
November 2, 2010
Bench Memo’s Ed Whelan nails Bert Brandenburg over at Justice at Stake for “misplaying the victim card” in his defense of Sandra Day O’Connor. Brandenburg ridiculously claims Justice at Stake is agnostic on the question of “merit” selection – but, Whelan points out, JAS is one of the main funders behind the “Yes on 1” campaign in Nevada which seeks to take away Nevadans right to vote for state judges and establish … you guessed it … “merit” selection.
AJP and NAM: Setting the Record Straight
November 2, 2010
As American Courthouse readers know, for my day job I run a group called the American Justice Partnership. In this election cycle AJP has been active in several state races and we’ve been attracting quite a bit of media attention for our work, especially in state judicial races.
Unfortunately, in reporting on AJP’s activities, news organizations have consistently managed to incorrectly describe AJP as connected to the National Association of Manufacturers.
While AJP was indeed launched in 2005 by the National Association of Manufacturers, and one of AJP’s co-founders was former Michigan governor and current president and CEO of NAM, John Engler, we are no longer affiliated with NAM. Over a year ago, AJP became a completely independent organization, unconnected to and unaffiliated with NAM. AJP receives no funds from NAM. AJP is not working with NAM on any projects. AJP is not coordinating with NAM in any way - including on state judicial races.
Much of the inaccurate information about AJP appears to come from the Brennan Center (which has received millions in funding from George Soros’ Open Society Institute). Last week, for example, this Soros grantee put out a press release describing AJP as “a group closely aligned with the National Association of Manufacturers.”
The New York Times editorial page - setting a new standard for journalistic laziness - lifted this description from the Brennan Center press release when it weighed in on state judicial campaigns, referring to the work of “a group closely aligned with the National Association of Manufacturers.”
Today, The Raw Story, after conducting a two-part interview with Charles Hall of the Soros-grantee group, Justice at Stake, published a story that describes AJP as “an affiliate of the National Association of Manufacturers.”
Apart from following the perpetuation of an erroneous description of AJP, it’s illuminating to see the Soros-funded judicial “merit” machine in action: from Brennan Center press release to the blogosphere and MSM.
While I’m not surprised that interest groups like the Brennan Center would try to spin AJP’s efforts as part of a broader NAM campaign, it’s amazing to me that such an august publication as the New York Times wouldn’t bother to check the facts in the Brennan Center press release before reprinting it on their editorial page.
Let’s Judge Sandra Day O’Connor by Her Own Standards
November 2, 2010
Justice at Stake’s Bert Brandenburg has a piece calling on everyone to pleeeaasssee “lay off” former U.S. Supreme Court Justice (and current “merit” selection lobbyist) Sandra Day O’Connor. Justice O’Connor got caught up in a little scandal last week after she woke up 50,000 Nevadans around 1:00 am with robocalls urging them to support a ballot initiative to end democratic judicial elections.
She tried to head off personal embarrassment by claiming she never authorized her taped message to be used as political telemarketing. But several outside commentators (including Ed Whelan and Gary Marx over at NRO’s Bench Memos and in a great oped by lawyers David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman) questioned whether her electioneering ran afoul of the judicial code of ethics. You see, although Justice O’Connor retired from the Supreme Court of the United States she has not resigned from the federal bench. She still hears cases when filling in on the federal bench and in just the past month had ruled on a case which could conceivably influence some Nevada voters.
This is where Brandenburg cries foul. He scolds O’Connor’s critics for “imply[ing] corruption” and then distancing themselves – of committing a “drive-by political hit” and conducting a “political mugging.” Talk about hypocrisy!
In making her “merit” selection campaign pitch, Justice O’Connor constantly impugns elected judges with absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever. She casually slimes honorable judges, claiming “the question is one of perception” and arguing that judicial elections “give an appearance at least that there might not have been a fair and impartial judge sitting on the case.” Having implied corruption and waded into a political fight over the direction of our courts, she and her allies now want to hold her above criticism, even after creating her own “perception” or “an appearance at least” that there is a conflict between the work of Sandra Day O’Connor-federal judge and Sandra Day O’Connor-lobbyist for “merit” selection. Justice O’Connor wasn’t mugged – she was hoist by her own petard!
Before joining the bench, Justice O’Connor was a politician, so I suspect she doesn’t need to hide behind Bert Brandenburg. But if she’s going to keep taking political stands, she’s got to take the heat like everyone else – and she should also resign her position on the federal bench to end her “perception” problem.
Nobody Here But Us Nonpartisans
November 1, 2010
“Merit” selection is supposed to take politics out of judicial selection, right?
Well, according to the Des Moines Register, the “merit” selection board in Iowa is comprised of…drum roll please…12 Democrats, 1 Republican and 1 with no known political affiliation. “The whole idea was to get it out of partisan politics,” says the Drake University Law School dean. “The notion that (the selection panel be) balanced by party would be a little odd.” What’s even odder is how anyone could claim with a straight face that a panel filled with 12 Democrats and 1 Republican is nonpartisan.