Shock Justice At Stake Poll!! Wisconsinites Hate “Merit” Selection
July 27, 2011
Justice at Stake is peddling the results of a new poll it financed that it claims demonstrates a “plunge” in public approval for Wisconsin’s Supreme Court. Of course, the mainstream media dutifully reported the story exactly as it was spoon-fed to them by Justice at Stake.
Wisconsinites were asked whether they approved or disapproved of the job the state Supreme Court is doing. Given the recent turmoil in the state – a tough Supreme Court campaign, a controversial 4-3 ruling upholding Governor Walker’s union reforms and “he said/she said” reports of physical altercations between justices – it’s something of a surprise that the poll results show an approve/disapprove spread of a measly 6 percentage points (33 percent approve/39 percent disapprove). That’s tighter than the 9-point differential in President Obama’s job approval rating in today’s Rasmussen survey. In other words, Wisconsin’s Supremes are making out better than the president!
What’s even more surprising is that “merit” selection continues to bomb among Wisconsin voters despite the alleged crisis of confidence in the state’s judiciary. Although Justice at Stake tried to bury the fact in its press release, a stunning 59 percent of voters oppose “merit” selection, compared to a paltry 23 percent that support it. What’s absolutely stunning – stunning! – is that this result came after a series of the most slanted, biased, prejudicial questions that all but put a gun to the respondents’ heads to try to persuade them to support “merit” selection.
- In Q8, poll takers are told Wisconsin Supreme Court races have become “some of the nastiest in the country, full of misleading ads and accusations of race baiting” that “compromis[e] the fairness and impartiality of Wisconsin’s courts.”
- In Q9, they hear that the Supreme Court is “dysfunctional” and that one justice called another a “profane word” and “threatened to destroy her.”
- In Q10, they learn that one justice “physically assaulted” – an incident “under investigation by law enforcement.”
- Even after hearing all THAT, in Q12, Wisconsin voters STILL reject “merit” selection by more than 2.5:1.
I can just see the pollsters struggling to explain the results to a furious Bert Brandenburg and the rest of the JAS crowd … “Uhhhh … ahhhh … we’re really sorry, Mr. Brandenburg. We rigged the poll as best we could, but ordinary people just seem to hate ‘merit’ selection.”
An Open Society? Not When it Comes to Judges or Hedge Funds
July 27, 2011
As American Courthouse readers know, the campaign to promote “merit” selection and fundamentally shift the direction of America’s court is being largely bankrolled by George Soros and his Open Society Institute to the tune of $45 million – and counting. Like many others, I find it ironic (to say the least) that an organization supposedly dedicated to promoting “democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens” would support a scheme like “merit” selection, which places one-third of our state government’s completely beyond any accountability to the citizens they serve. Having judges chosen behind closed doors by a tribunal of elites – rather than by millions of citizens in a transparent election – strikes me as a pretty warped view of how an “open” society ought to operate.
So I guess it’s not a surprise to learn that Mr. Soros has decided to shut down his hedge fund to outside investors solely to escape new government oversight requirements passed in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown. Because of maneuvers like this, “instead of providing more transparency,” reports CNBC, hedge funds are being driven “deeper into the shadows.”
Guess the definition of an Open Society just got a little smaller.
“Merit” Seleciton’s Rigged Game in Missouri
July 21, 2011
Perhaps the most loudly trumpeted claim of the “merit” selection lobby is that this process assures that only the most highly qualified, most deeply respected, most intellectually astute judges make it to the bench. Under “merit” selection, we’re told, the cream rises to the top – and the political hacks, special interest candidates and politically-minded judges never make it past the wise, disinterested, public-spirited members of the judicial selection commission.
What a crock.
In Missouri, the birthplace of “merit” selection, a vacancy has opened up on the Supreme Court. Out of 32,000 members in good standing with the Missouri Bar, only 13 bothered to apply for a seat on the most prestigious court in the state. Of those 13, 10 have a history of contributing to Democratic candidates; 5 contributed to Governor Jay Nixon at some point in his career; 2 were Nixon aides; and 2 are active members of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, including a past president.
As Better Courts for Missouri makes clear, the fact that only 13 people put their names forward is itself a disturbing indicator of the problems plaguing “merit” selection in Missouri. As recently as 2007 and 2008, 30 and 23 candidates applied for the vacancies on the court. I guess word is getting around that only candidates with political connections or the Missouri Trial Lawyer stamp of approval need apply. So much for getting ”politics” out of the system. Seems more like the way for trial lawyers to dominate it. Without any “politics” of course. Riiiggghhht…
Monkey Business with Recusal Rules
July 21, 2011
Jeffrey Hadden of the Detroit News has a great piece on how recusal rules are being manipulated in a back door attempt to reshape courts by sidelining conservative justices. Hadden points out that a 2009 change in Michigan’s recusal rules – at a time when liberal activists had a temporary majority – allows state Supreme Court justices to remove each other from certain cases. The Court also shifted the recusal criteria from the rigorous “actual bias” standard to what Hadden rightly calls the more slippery “appearance of impropriety.” Current Michigan Chief Justice Robert Young warns the new rules risk “weaponizing” recusal motions because, as Hadden puts it, recusal votes can now be easily “manipulated and done in bad faith.”
A Tree Grows in Joplin: A Challenge to All
July 20, 2011
Pardon this brief interruption from our normal programming…but I wanted to call a great cause to the attention of all American Courthouse readers.
Called “A Tree Grows in Joplin,” this all-volunteer effort is working each day to replace the many trees lost in the terrible May tornado that ravaged Joplin, Missouri. Many of us watched the news coverage of the tornado’s aftermath and wanted to know what we could do to help. Well, here’s your chance.
“A Tree Grows in Joplin” is spearheading a terrific initiative to replace the lost trees with Missouri’s state tree, the flowering dogwood, and is calling for individuals and organizations to help restore and beautify Joplin by sponsoring a tree for as little as $15 a tree.
Not only do I want everyone to know about this effort and to spread the word to family and friends, I want to issue a challenge. My family is sponsoring 10 trees and pledging a donation to the Greater Ozarks American Red Cross fund for Joplin Tornado Relief. Who can match us? Or even better — one-up us!?
Let’s rally together to help our Joplin neighbors.
More Nonsense about “Merit” Selection in Wisconsin
July 19, 2011
During the recent battle over union reform in Wisconsin, tens of thousands of protesters and counter-protesters descended on the state capitol. Every Democratic Senator fled the state in an attempt to paralyze the legislature and prevent a vote on the bill. Teachers walked off the job, abandoning their students. Governor Scott Walker received death threats. And dozens of recalls were launched against legislators from both parties by angry citizens and union groups. Into this maelstrom stepped the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which upheld the union reform bill on a 4-3 vote.
Neutral observers might expect a close vote on such a controversial measure. But Rebecca Love Kourlis sees the decision as proof that “dissension on the court” has “reached a boiling point.” It’s all because of Wisconsin’s “current method of choosing judges,” she writes in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel; specifically, because Wisconsin allows citizens to select their judges in open, democratic elections.
A former justice on the Colorado Supreme Court and current executive director of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (who could be against that?!), Ms. Kourlis would rather judges be chosen based on their “qualifications and experience” – instead of the whims of the voters. Under “merit” selection, “a judicial selection commission would screen and interview applicants for appellate court vacancies, and recommend the best-qualified candidates to the governor.”
Like other “merit” selection proponents, Ms. Kourlis claims her plan keeps “politics” out of the judicial selection process. Of course, she never mentions the uproar over “merit” selection in states like Missouri, Tennessee and Florida, where arrogant, unelected, unaccountable commissions routinely try to force highly ideological candidates down the throats of the governor and the people. Or states like Nevada, where the people voted down a “merit” selection plan on the ballot last November, despite millions in spending by special interest groups and embarrassing robo-calls by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Come to think of it, Kourlis’ own Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System joined in the electioneering in Nevada, albeit unsuccessfully, along with the rest of the $45 million “merit” selection machine. I guess for Kourlis and the rest of the “merit” selection gang, it’s OK to play politics … as long as you’re on the right side.
Kumbaya in Wisconsin?
July 14, 2011
The Northwestern newspaper in Oshkosh, WI wants Wisconsin’s seven Supreme Court Justices to “make a visible, earnest effort to repair some of the damage they have done to the [Court’s] reputation.” How?
“A good place to start would be a unanimous public apology from the seven jurists with a collective acknowledgement that their partisanship has transcended the inherent philosophical differences they bring to the bench.”
Here at American Courthouse, we’re all for civility in the courts and in judicial elections as well. And I suppose getting Wisconsin’s Supremes together for a round of Kumbaya is preferable to the “solution” typically bandied about by Wisconsin’s legal elites and their media supporters – namely ending citizen participation in judicial selection by letting a commission of lawyers pick judges instead of the people.
Yet Winnebago County district attorney Christian Gossett was closer to the truth when he was quoted in the same Northwestern editorial saying that “if the judiciary is viewed as a rough equivalent of the legislature, they risk undermining themselves.” And why are courts across the country viewed as rough equivalents of legislatures? Not because judges are elected or are too partisan, but because too often they take it upon themselves to act like legislators. If judges really want to stop “undermining themselves” they don’t need to apologize – they need to return to their proper role of interpreting the law, rather than making law.
“Merit” Selection Proponents Turn McCarthyite in Iowa
July 8, 2011
Iowa’s dwindling band of “merit” selection supporters – who watched in horror as Iowans dumped three justices chosen by “merit” in the last election – is up in arms again. This time they’re fuming at Governor Terry Branstad for appointing to Iowa’s Judicial Nominating Commission a lawyer who does not subscribe to the Group Think that now predominates within elite legal circles – namely the conceit that legal elites do a better job picking judges than ordinary citizens or their elected representatives.
It seems attorney Ryan Koopmans committed the grave sin of speaking favorably about taking power away from the unelected commission to which Brandstad appointed him and adopting a federal-style system for appointing judges, where the elected governor would make the choice with the advice and consent of elected Senators. A group led by two politicians called Justice Not Politics pronounced Koopmans’ views “troubling” and accused Branstad of selecting commissioners “intent on tearing down our [merit selection] system” – as if Koopmans was some kind of Fifth Column spy burrowing into the commission intent on ending democracy as we know it.
You’ve got to tip your hat to Branstad for turning Iowa’s most sophisticated “merit” selection defenders into a bunch of frothing-at-the-mouth, modern-day McCarthyites. I can almost hear the laughter emanating from the Governor’s Mansion in Des Moines.
While my own preferences run toward making the judicial selection process as open and democratic as possible through transparent elections, a federal system would be a vast improvement over the clubby, opaque, secretive “merit” selection scheme that too often produces arrogant judges who are often hostile to the values of the people they serve. In the meantime, I’ll rest easier knowing Ryan Koopmans is sitting behind “merit” selection’s closed doors.
The Blagojevich Plan for Wisconsin
July 5, 2011
A pair of Wisconsin state senators has introduced legislation that would allow a small committee controlled by legal elites and special interests to select judges in closed door meetings, rather than allow citizens to make the decision in open democratic elections. American Courthouse readers will instantly recognize this as “merit” selection – a name that reflects the conceit that ordinary voters are incapable of evaluating judicial candidates on the basis of merit. But Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, who opposes the scheme, has coined a better expression for this system of picking judges: the Blagojevich Plan. As Fitzgerald put it:
“Isn’t this what Rod Blagojevich went to prison for? Playing kingmaker….Open and free elections are always the best option.”
Nice analogy! It neatly captures the rigged, insider’s game that “merit” selection has become. Even diehard proponents of “merit” selection like Adam Skaggs of the Brennan Center for Justice (recipient of over $2.2 million in Soros $$ over the past decade or so) recognize the weaknesses of this system. Admitting it’s no “silver bullet” and isn’t “immune” from politics, Skaggs says “merit” selection should be structured in such a way that the process isn’t dominated by any particular group. The problem is, special interest control is baked into the system and lawyers groups inevitably end up taking over the commissions.
The mantra that “merit” selection panels should not be controlled by lawyers has become a new talking point for charter members of the Soros campaign, like Skaggs and the Brennan Center. But, if Skaggs is actually sincere – if he really wants a cross section of society making important decisions like who serves us on the bench, why not give the job to the most representative group of all: Wisconsin’s more than 3.4 million registered voters?