Ohio Chief Justice Runs up the White Flag on “Merit” Selection
October 31, 2011
Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor apparently has concluded “merit” selection is a lost cause. In a Cleveland Plain Dealer article, by columnist Brent Larkin, O’Connor “believes, probably correctly, that voters would never approve such an idea. Indeed, twice in the past – 1938 and 1987 – Ohioans overwhelmingly rejected merit selection ballot issues.” Instead, she’ll be busying herself with small-ball reforms – like raising salaries for Ohio judges and a ballot initiative that would increase the mandatory retirement age from 70 to 75. In today’s world, where so many reform-minded judges are constantly seeking to grasp more power and further insulate themselves from the citizens they serve, I guess this counts as a victory.
Iowa Justices Take to the Campaign Trail
October 13, 2011
Following the decision of Iowa voters to oust three Supreme Court justices last November, the state’s high court members have taken to the campaign trail in an attempt to preserve their jobs. In order to “foster a better understanding of the courts,” Iowa’s Supremes are barnstorming the state, hearing cases in Cedar Rapids, Mason City and Carroll, in addition to their home base of Des Moines. Tonight, after listening to oral arguments in Mason City, the justices plan a “public reception” for area citizens. Then, it’s on to six high schools to “talk to students about the role of the courts.” Next thing you know, they’ll shed those black robes and start working ropelines and kissing babies! One lower court judge has even started writing a bi-weekly newspaper column called “Court Calls” – offering a “civics education” to the public and giving judges a “meaningful way to communicate” with voters.
As far as I know, neither Justice at Stake nor Sandra Day O’Connor has raised a peep about the grave threat to our courts from justices sullying themselves by descending from the Olympian heights of the bench to interact with ordinary mortals. So much for the claim of “merit” selection proponents that judicial independence absolutely demands that judges remain completely aloof from the voters. A cynic might conclude that the entire “merit” selection campaign was never really about preserving judicial independence at all – but a clever, poll-driven scheme to allow the Professional Left to tip courts in their preferred ideological direction.
What America’s Legal System can Learn from the Greeks
October 10, 2011
With modern day Greece teetering on the edge of default, it’s easy to think we have nothing to learn from the Greeks – unless, perhaps, we look back to our democratic forerunners of 2,400 years ago. In her new book, The Hemlock Cup: Socrates, Athens and the Search for the Good Life, Bettany Hughes informs us that Athens circa 399 B.C. had already anticipated and adopted remedies to protect against the ancient equivalent of what we all recognize as a scheming trial lawyer.
“It is in democratic Athens that the sycophant is born: a man on the make who brings a trumped-up court case; someone who thinks he’ll be able to score off the very presence of a justice system. Sycophantai were the fifth-century legal equivalent of ambulance-chasers; citizens who brought cases on flimsy charges so they the could be paid for attending court, and might possibly even net damages. And so steep fines have been introduced – if you don’t succeed in getting any more than one-fifth of the votes, you have to pay the state back.”
That’s right. The ancient Greeks invested loser pays legislation!
The Man Behind “Merit” Selection
October 7, 2011
American Courthouse readers know George Soros primarily as the financier of the “merit” selection campaign aimed at putting trial lawyers and other legal elites in charge of choosing judges and shifting our state judiciaries sharply to the left. But when he’s not trying to abolish democratic elections for judges, Soros has another life – as a hedge fund tycoon with a net worth estimated at $22 billion, making him the 7th richest person in the world. How did Soros accumulate such a huge fortune? A court case that has been rattling around France for the last decade provides a clue.
Yesterday, Soros lost an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights to overturn his 2002 conviction in France for insider trading. According to the Financial Times, Soros was found “to have had inside knowledge about the intentions of a group of super-wealthy French investors – the ‘golden granddads’ – to bid for” a French bank. “Although the bid failed, Mr. Soros’s fund profited by buying shares before – and selling after – the group’s intentions became public …” While Soros later claimed he didn’t understand the law, the Court concluded that as a “famous institutional investor, well-known to the business community [Soros] could not have been unaware that his decision to invest … entailed the risk that he might be committing the offence of insider trading.”
As a convicted insider trader, I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that Soros would want to remake the judicial selection system in the same fashion he operated his hedge fund – with insiders making decisions and raking in profits, while ordinary investors (and voters) get shafted.
Soros vs. American Courts: Oped in Washington Times
October 7, 2011
Today, the Washington Times published my opinion piece on the left’s strategy to shape our nation’s state courts — all financed by George Soros. You may read it here.
The oped builds on an earlier blog post where I reported on the Soros money trail leading to a “special report” on our state courts and published by the liberal American Prospect magazine.