Michigan’s Partisan Judicial Task Force
May 4, 2012
The Lansing State Journal has an editorial praising the recommendations of Michigan’s Judicial Selection Task Force. I’m reading the report right now and will share my thoughts soon.
For now, it’s enough to say the State Journal gets it wrong starting with the second word of its editorial claiming the task force was “bipartisan.” In fact, the task force was heavily stacked with prominent Democratic activists and members of the state’s legal aristocracy, including the former Chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, a former Democratic candidate for governor, three former presidents of the State Bar of Michigan, and two former heads of the Michigan Trial Lawyers Association.
With former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor serving as the Task Force’s honorary chair, this whole thing was pre-wired to call for abolishing democratic judicial elections and push for “merit” selection – which as I noted earlier this week is under fire in Missouri, where it originated. More to come.
More Huffing and Puffing in Missouri
May 4, 2012
An oped in the Columbia Daily Tribune blasts a plan moving through the Missouri legislature that would reduce the power of legal special interest groups when it comes to picking judges and makes the entire judicial selection process more accountable. The piece is interesting because it reveals the true bottom line demands of the “merit” selection supporters in Missouri.
First, when push comes to shove, they believe lawyers must control the process and oppose giving non-lawyers a majority on the selection commission. Second, they don’t think anyone should be accountable for which judges actually get selected and believe it’s wrong for voters to hold the governor accountable for picking bad judges, which they could do under the proposed reforms. In Missouri, “merit” selection is no longer about eliminating politics in judicial selection – it’s about preserving a system where lawyers control who makes it to the bench and voters have no say in the matter.
Update on Tennessee
April 25, 2012
In a post yesterday, I mentioned that two reform plans are working their way through the Tennessee legislature – a federal-style plan and a confirmation of the current flawed “merit” selection system. Over at Gavel to Gavel, Bill Raftery points out that the federal plan passed the Senate 22-9 – enough to meet the test of a simple majority on first passage and enough to gain a two-thirds majority, which will be the hurdle when it comes up again in the 2013-2014 Senate. Legislation to continue the “merit” selection system won a simple majority in the Senate, but fell short of the two-thirds vote that will be needed next time around.
Elections Can Shape Judiciary for Years to Come
April 25, 2012
Clint Bolick of the Hoover Institution has a piece in the Daily Caller on the importance of the upcoming presidential election in shaping the federal courts. Bolick notes that the Supreme Court’s “balance is up for grabs” and that during the next presidential term three justices (Kennedy, Scalia and Ginsburg) will reach their 80s. For the first time since Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall, the president may have a chance to shift the precarious 5-4 split on the court. And since the average term of a Supreme Court justice spans more than six presidential terms, Bolick notes, the next election could shape the direction of the Court for decades to come.
While Bolick calls federal judicial nominations the “grand prize in presidential elections,” state elections can have an equally important impact on state courts. Electing the right governors and legislators (and state Supreme Court justices in states that use democratic judicial elections) is often crucial in deciding whether courts will uphold the rule of law or take it upon themselves to legislate from the bench.
Judicial Selection Reform Moves through Tennessee Senate
April 24, 2012
The Tennessee Senate voted 23-8 yesterday to move to a federal-style judicial selection system, with judges appointed by the governor with confirmation by the legislature. A bill to enshrine the current “merit” selection system – where a panel controlled by legal special interest groups selects judges – is also alive in the legislature.
Each provision must win approval by the House and earn a two-thirds supermajority of lawmakers prior to the 2014 election in order to be put on the ballot for final approval by Tennessee voters.
Meanwhile, the Knoxville News reports the Judicial Crisis Network – an organization dedicated to “a fair and impartial judiciary” and the “Founders’ vision of a nation of limited government” – has thrown its support behind the plan to end “merit” selection in Tennessee and adopt a federal-style system.
Legal Special Interests Push to Protect their Power in Missouri
April 19, 2012
Missouri trial lawyer Brett Emison speaks out against a proposed reform to the state’s judicial selection system. Not surprisingly, Emison supports the current system, where trial lawyers have undue influence on the judicial nominating commission.
In a clumsy attempt at political jiu jitsu, Emison claims that giving more power over judicial selection to the people of Missouri and their elected representatives and then having prospective judges confirmed by the elected legislature – instead of keeping power in the hands of a lawyer-dominated, unaccountable commission – would somehow result in more special interest influence. Complete nonsense, of course.
More Obamacare Fallout
April 19, 2012
Wm. T. Robinson III, President of the American Bar Association, has joined the chorus criticizing President Obama for his pre-emptive attack on the U.S. Supreme Court. In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Robinson called Obama’s remarks “troubling” and wrote that “we should expect our leaders to refrain from partisan statements aimed at judges fulfilling their constitutional role and responsibilities.”
Obama has a history of attacking the Supreme Court over decisions that do not align with his political views. In his 2010 State of the Union address, Obama blasted the Court’s Citizens United ruling as the justices sat in the front row of the House. Many legal experts saw Obama’s latest attack as an attempt to exert political pressure on the justices prior to their decision on the Obamacare case.
Fighting Judicial Activism in Florida
April 19, 2012
A movement called Restore Justice 2012 is launching a fight against judicial activism by Florida’s Supreme Court. The group’s president, Jesse Phillips, says Restore Justice 2012 is dedicated to “heightening public awareness of our court system” so voters can make “an informed decision” over whether to retain three state Supreme Court justices up for retention election this fall.
Hope for Ending “Merit” Selection in Tennessee
April 18, 2012
On NRO’s Bench Memos, Carrie Severino reports that Tennessee is closing in on a plan to junk “merit” selection and move toward a modified federal system, where the governor would appoint judges with confirmation by the legislature. An amendment passed the Tennessee Senate earlier this week and the House is moving forward with similar legislation. The plan has the support of Governor Haslam and leaders of both the House and Senate and enjoys broad approval among business and conservative groups in Tennessee.
More Opposition to “Merit” Selection in Tennessee
April 18, 2012
Leaders of three major business and conservative groups came out strongly against “merit” selection as a method of judicial selection dominated by “trial lawyers and liberal special interest groups.” According to Bobbie Patray, President of the Tennessee Eagle Forum; David Fowler, President of Family Action of Tennessee; and Brad Stevens, State Director of Americans for Prosperity-Tennessee:
“Tennessee’s judges play an extremely important role, impacting the law related to everything from family values to property rights and the business climate. Their selection is simply too important to leave to an unaccountable, lawyer-dominated commission.”