Missouri Judges Aren’t Angels Either
January 5, 2012
As I mentioned yesterday, New Mexico’s problems with cocaine-possessing, prostitute-cavorting, drunk driving judges would seem to suggest that judges chosen by “merit” selection do not have a monopoly on public virtue. A recent scandal in Missouri – the birthplace of “merit” selection – offers evidence that judges chosen under this system have not cornered the market on professional ethics either.
While vacationing in China last October, it seems Associate Court Judge Barbara T. Peebles delegated her judicial responsibility to courtroom clerks, who handled “at least 350 cases” and even issued “as many as 18 arrest warrants” under her forged signature. One clerk-gone-wild dismissed “five cases, involving kidnapping, unlawful use of a weapon, property damage, domestic violence and theft.” When not playing judge, these non-lawyer clerks are primarily responsible for “keep[ing] track of paperwork.”
St. Louis Circuit Court Presiding Judge Steven Ohmer blasted Judge Peebles for “an overall lack of management and supervision” and said he was “still shocked” at the quantity of cases dispensed by clerks. A local defense lawyer was less diplomatic: “I think it’s as illegal as hell.”
When confronted about these actions after returning from China, Judge Peebles “denied that her clerks had acted improperly.” Judge Ohmer decided against removing Judge Peebles from office. As the watchdog group Better Courts for Missouri put it, “essentially, the court is letting Peebles go without any punishment because her actions were so outrageous that they would require a punishment that hasn’t been used in three decades, and they hope that switching her to a new division will alleviate the problem.”
The important point here is that judges are only human, regardless of whether they were chosen through democratic elections or by secret committee under “merit” selection. Judges can be unprofessional, unethical and even corrupt, just like any other public servant. That’s why judicial independence needs to be balanced with strong accountability. Democratic elections provide that accountability; “merit” selection doesn’t.
Blame the People
January 4, 2012
According to a recent Philadelphia Inquirer editorial, a Philadelphia Traffic Court judge is alleged to have promised to dismiss traffic tickets in exchange for campaign cash. If that weren’t enough, he also passed around naked pictures of himself to female city employees. What do you think? Is this an example of a sleazeball who, if the charges are true, can easily be permanently removed from office by the Court of Judicial Discipline? Not according to the “merit” selection crowd. No! It’s an indictment of democracy itself! It’s Exhibit A in why the people cannot be trusted to choose their public servants! Or, as Shira Goodman of the George Soros-financed Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts solemnly puts it, “judicial elections are not the way” to pick judges.
But wait a minute. Didn’t New Mexico Representative Dennis Kintigh just write an oped detailing a long catalogue of ethical abuses that “have diminished and tarnished the reputation and standing” of the judiciary in that state? Allegations involving judges chosen under “merit” selection? Incidents including gross violations of individual rights, drunk driving charges, possession of cocaine and “cavorting with a prostitute”?
As I wrote at the time, the “merit” selection crowd likes to claim that judges chosen under their system have a monopoly on virtue. But the examples from Pennsylvania and New Mexico show that judges are human – just like any other public servant.
Shira Goodman’s hopes notwithstanding, judges do not become angels simply because they are chosen in secret by a small committee dominated by legal special interest groups. Her attempt to blame one judge’s ethical transgressions on the people who voted him into office demonstrates both the contempt the “merit” selection crowd has for ordinary citizens and the reason why “merit” selection has never caught on in Pennsylvania.
The Right View of Judges
January 3, 2012
Newt Gingrich’s campaign critique of the judiciary has elicited much rending of garments among the liberal elite – but also a surprisingly insightful editorial from the Boston Globe that serves as a good starting point for understanding the proper role of the judiciary in American democracy and the frustration many of us feel about courts that have become too isolated, insulated and arrogant. Like Gingrich, the Globe takes on the “now entrenched presumption that once the court has decided a constitutional question, no power on earth short of a constitutional amendment – or a later reversal by the court itself – can alter that decision.”
“But judges are not divine and their opinions are not holy writ. The judiciary intended to be a co-equal branch of government, not a paramount one. If the Supreme Court wrongly decides a constitutional case, nothing obliges Congress or the president – or the states or the people, for that matter – to simply bow and accept it.”
Judges, the Globe rightly points out, “are no more immune to the lure of power than anybody else, and their assertion of judicial supremacy … has won them an extraordinary degree of clout and authority.” The elected branches of government “have an obligation to check and balance the judiciary” because:
“… the heart and soul of American democracy is that power derives from the consent of the governed, and that no branch of government – executive, legislative, or judicial – rules by unchallenged fiat.”
The Globe’s level-headed, constitutionally-grounded analysis applies to both federal judges and state judges. It’s also why “merit” selection – which produces judges who are unaccountable and rule by “unchallenged fiat” – is under fire in so many states. If Newt Gingrich’s critique of the judiciary prompts more Americans to stop viewing judges as God-like Olympians in robes and more like public servants in need of strong oversight, he will have made a healthy contribution to the public discourse that will far outlive this presidential cycle.
Craziest Lawsuit Contest
January 3, 2012
The New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance is holding its annual contest to identify the craziest lawsuit of 2011. My personal favorite: the 19- and 21-year-old siblings who sued their mother because of the emotional distress they suffered from the corny birthday cards she gave them. Life can sure be tough.