All in the Soros-Bankrolled Family
September 30, 2011
An uber liberal rag, The American Prospect, has published a “Special Report” called “Justice for Sale: The Threats to Judicial Independence in America’s Courts.” Sounds pretty ominous. But as I read it, it all sounded eerily familiar. Instead of actual, real, verifiable evidence that “justice” is actually “for sale” somewhere in the U.S. – say, a specific case decided by a specific judge at the behest of a specific donor – what we get is just a rehash of the standard boilerplate being peddled by the “merit” selection political machine.
As I’m sure you can imagine, I was shocked … shocked … to discover that this “special report” was made possible through the “generous support” of the Open Society Foundation and the “valuable input” of Lambda Legal and its Fair Courts Project. Actually, Lambda Legal generally and its Fair Courts Project specifically are themselves beneficiaries of “generous support” from the Open Society octopus – to the tune of over $1 million between 2003 and 2009, including $260,000 to underwrite the Fair Courts Project.
Once you pull the string on this thing, it’s amazing how far it goes. The American Prospect itself raked in something on the order of $1.3 million over the past decade or so from Open Society, over and above whatever it got paid for the Special Report. The other acknowledged sponsor of the Special Report, a group called Demos and its predecessor, the National Voting Rights Institute, have received over $3 million in Open Society funding. In the first article alone, four of the groups quoted as authoritative, nonpartisan sources were: Justice at Stake (more than $3.1 million in Open Society lucre over the past decade); the Brennan Center ($12.3 million); the National Institute on Money in State Politics ($2.3 million); and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (ok, only $150,000).
For those readers without a calculator handy, that’s about $23 million in Open Society $$$ connected in some way to this Special Report and I only got to page 7. Which leads me to ask: Is there any pro-“merit” selection group anywhere in America that isn’t on the Soros payroll?
The Anti-Democratic Mindset of the Professional Left
September 28, 2011
In previous posts, I’ve often suggested that many of the arguments the “merit” selection crowd makes against judicial elections – that they are too partisan and produce judges that are too political – can be applied to the election of any public servant. If you believe a panel of disinterested experts can do a better job picking judges, why not get rid of elections for legislators, governors and presidents? Well, in separate instances yesterday, two charter members of the Professional Left pretty much argued that democratic elections are the source of many of our biggest challenges and that cutting back on democracy is the answer to the nation’s problems.
Speaking to a business audience, North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue proposed suspending Congressional elections so Members could “get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things.” Said Perdue:
“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope someone can agree with me on that….You want people [in office] who don’t worry about the next election.”
As it happens, someone did agree with Perdue. Writing in the New Republic, former Obama Budget Director Peter Orszag argues that “political polarization” is “harming Washington’s ability to do the basic, necessary work of government.” The answer?
“To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions [sound familiar?] for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.”
Governor Perdue tried to dismiss her remarks as a big joke … ha, ha. I wasn’t there, so I can’t really say, but the comment section of the Raleigh News & Observer had to be shut down after readers flooded it protests. How dare they take their own governor at her word. Orszag hasn’t felt the need to modify or amend his remarks. No matter – joke or no joke, these statements offer a clear insight into the anti-democratic mentality of the Professional Left. Whether it comes to picking judges or solving “the serious problems facing our country,” if the people would just get out of the way and let the omniscient, nonpartisan experts do their jobs, America would be better off. Really.
Trial Lawyer Payback (Continued)
September 28, 2011
As part of his job creation package, President Obama is proposing to allow unsuccessful job applicants to “sue if they think a company of 15 or more employees denied them a job because they were unemployed.” In other words, “give me a job or I’ll sue!” Maybe job applicants should just bring a trial lawyer along on their next interview.
More Trial Lawyer Payback?
September 23, 2011
Is it just my imagination or does every new Obama jobs bill include at least one little nugget for his allies at Trial Lawyers, Inc.? Joel Griffith of Big Government points out that a clause buried inside Obama’s American Jobs Act “exposes states to frivolous lawsuits” by requiring states that receive federal funds under the bill to give up their “sovereign immunity rights” guaranteed under the Constitution’s 11th Amendment. Translation: trial lawyers have a new loophole to gouge state governments (and, by extension, taxpayers).
By far the most generous contributors to President Obama’s 2008 campaign were – you guessed it – lawyers and lobbyists, funneling nearly $44 million to elect a president who has been, to put it kindly, sympathetic to their interests. So far in the 2012 election cycle, the Obama campaign has secured over $6 million from 54 lawyers known in modern campaign parlance as “bundlers.” Bundlers, OpenSecrets helpfully points out, are “people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and well, anyone who’s willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big ‘bundle.’”
You’d think any individual wealthy enough to rise to the exalted status of Bundler to the President of the United States would be one of those our president is targeting to pay his/her “fair share” to the government. Of course it’s easier to pay your fair share when higher taxes are returned to you in the form of higher legal fees.
The Case for Secret Judicial Nominating Commissions
September 20, 2011
In a 9/19 op-ed in the Albuquerque Journal, Kevin Washburn, the chair of New Mexico’s judicial nominating commission, gamely argues that deliberations by the commission should be allowed to continue behind closed doors, with no public oversight. Even though I completely disagree with his position, I have to say Washburn makes his case with none of the demagoguery, elitism or arrogance that has become a depressing staple of Sandra Day O’Connor and the George Soros-fueled “merit” selection movement. But seeing such an obviously decent, public-spirited person as Washburn tie himself in knots defending the notion that one-third of our government must be chosen behind closed doors makes it even more apparent that “merit” selection is a fundamentally bankrupt idea.
Washburn acknowledges that “the case for transparency… is strong,” but that “unfortunately, transparency can undermine frank and robust deliberations.” Members of the judicial nominating commission, Washburn worries, “may be reticent to speak up and actually deliberate if their discussions occur in front of the public or the media.” Or they “may fear retaliation by a candidate who later becomes a judge” – particularly if the member happens to be a lawyer. “In sum, full transparency could mean that no actual deliberation occurs, and thus may actually harm the deliberations process.”
The most carefully-considered counter-argument to all of this is: So what? In a democracy, the interests of the people in having their public servants chosen in an open, accountable manner far outweighs the delicate sensitivities of any “merit” selection commissioner. If a commissioner cannot make a substantive case for or against a potential nominee to the public, then he or she has a duty to decline a spot on the commission in the first place or step down. If lawyers are so fearful about potential conflicts of interest, then maybe there shouldn’t be any lawyers on the panels. If transparency will “harm the deliberations process,” thereby producing inferior judges, then it’s time to scrap the system altogether.
Of course, the real answer is to put the people themselves back in charge of picking judges, through fair and open elections. No secret deliberations. No conflicts of interest. No worries about reprisals from powerful judges.
Iowa Chief Justice Lashes Out at Voters
September 19, 2011
Iowa Chief Justice Mark Cady is accusing Iowa voters of engaging in “an attack on the concept of judicial independence and the core of the country’s values” for declining to retain the services of three Supreme Court justices in last November’s elections. (H/T GavelGrab)
Apparently he’s forgotten that the ability to hold our public servants accountable is also a “core” value in American democracy.
Chief Justice Cady then goes on to imply that elected judges would not have the moral courage to decide controversial cases such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Brown overturn Plessy v. Ferguson – a ruling upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation laws handed down by a Supreme Court appointed in the exact same manner as the Brown court? And wasn’t Plessy’s outrageous “separate but equal” standard allowed to stand by every Supreme Court for the next 60 years, while state after state used the ruling by appointed judges as a justification for implementing Jim Crow laws? Come to think of it, didn’t an appointed Supreme Court also issue the Dred Scott decision, which held that Congress had not authority to prohibit slavery in the territories – a decision that led to the rise of the Republican Party, the election of Abraham Lincoln and the outbreak of the Civil War?
Unfortunately, history is replete with examples of both appointed and elected judges making bad decisions. It would be nice if we could magically confer wisdom and moral courage on judges merely through the mechanism we choose to select them. Since we can’t (Chief Justice Cady’s musings to the contrary notwithstanding), the best way to ensure a judiciary consistent with the country’s “core” values is to make sure judges remain both independent and accountable.
WSJ Lifts the Rock in Missouri
September 15, 2011
A Wall Street Journal editorial today picks up on my 9/7 post about the insidious relationship between the Missouri trial bar and the commission that controls judicial appointments in the state. As the Journal points out, the commission’s most recent slate of Supreme Court nominees reads like a “Who’s Who” of Missouri trial lawyers – hardly a surprise considering the commission itself is stacked with trial bar bigwigs. A judicial selection system originally intended to remove politics from the process “has instead handed disproportionate power to trial lawyers and state bar associations,” the Journal writes, resulting in a system that “elevates nominating-commission cronies.”
Of course, the multi-million dollar, George Soros-funded “merit” selection machine wants us all to believe it’s just pure coincidence that trial lawyer-dominated commissions keep nominating trial lawyer-connected judges. No wonder they fight so hard to keep “merit” commission deliberations behind closed doors, outside of public scrutiny.
An Inadvertent (and Inconvenient) Truth About “Merit” Selection
September 9, 2011
The Wisconsin State Journal ran an editorial yesterday that suggests the physical altercation between Supreme Court Justices David Prosser and Ann Walsh Bradley can be traced to Wisconsin’s “ugly judicial elections” which “create hard feelings and suspicion both on and off the court.” “Merit” selection, the editorial implies, would lessen these hard, suspicious feelings between Justices and presumably lower the risk of violent altercations in judicial chambers.
It’s tempting to dismiss all this as mere pabulum – just another “merit” selection proponent grasping at any excuse to shill for a losing idea. But perhaps the State Journal has inadvertently revealed an important (maybe even inconvenient) truth about “merit” selection. The Prosser-Bradley bout occurred during a heated discussion about the Supreme Court’s forthcoming 4-3 ruling that upheld Governor Scott Walker’s union reform plan. The battle over this plan was so bitter and divisive it led to massive protests at the capitol and the extraordinary sight of Democratic legislators fleeing the state to block the measure’s passage.
The only possible way “merit” selection could have averted a similar division on the Supreme Court would be if this system produced an ideologically consistent set of justices. And given the fact that trial lawyers and other special interest groups routinely control “merit” selection panels, it doesn’t take much imagination to deduce the ideological slant of justices chosen under this system. Here we get to the nub of the matter: The State Journal and other “merit” selection lobbyists know full well that their preferred method for picking judges would shift the court sharply to the left – a shift that likely would have led to the overturning of Governor Walker’s union reforms. The only “civility” on the Court they seek is one where all justices march in lock-step to advance the ideological agenda they favor.
Anger Management at Wisconsin Supreme Court
September 7, 2011
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and David Prosser have been cleared of all charges by a special investigator called in to unravel the she said/he said “chokegate” incident back in June. Now it’s time for the healing to begin.
Wisconsin Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson wants to retain “an expert in small group dynamics” to teach each Justice how to “work in a more constructive manner.” If that doesn’t work, each Justice would undergo “professional training in conflict resolution.” After going through anger management, “the Justices could issue a joint statement pledging to work together in a collegial atmosphere.”
If all else fails, Abrahamson has threatened to force recalcitrant Justices to sit inside the classroom during recess. (OK, that was my idea.)
Fortunately, these Kumbaya moments will be achieved “at no expense to the taxpayers.”
P.S. Read Jim Stingl’s brilliant riff on “chokegate” here.
Rigged Judicial Selection in Missouri
September 7, 2011
Need proof that “merit” selection has turned judicial selection into a rigged game controlled by those modern “malefactors of great wealth” in the trial bar? Just take a look at Missouri, the birthplace of “merit” selection.
Last week, Judge Michael Manners, former President of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, was nominated to fill a vacancy on the state Supreme Court. His nomination was made by the Appellate Judicial Commission, which includes Nancy Mogab, a former member of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys Board of Governors and John Wooddell, a current member of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys Board of Governors. Jill Shurin – a non-lawyer member of the Appellate Judicial Commission, presumably placed on the commission to balance the power of the trial bar – is married to a prominent trial lawyer who happens to be a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum, which describes itself as “one of the most prestigious groups of trial lawyers in the United States,” all of whose members have won “million or multi-million dollar verdicts.” Anyone see a pattern here?
As James Harris, Executive Director of Better Courts for Missouri, rightly pointed out, elevating Judge Manners to the state’s highest court would further the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys’ goal of “striking down laws like tort reform and workers’ compensation reform that protect our state from the ravages of excess litigation.” But even his very nomination provides all the supporting evidence any fair-minded observer needs of the power the trial bar already wields when it comes to shaping Missouri’s courts.