Special Interest Groups Fight to Protect Their Power in Florida
January 12, 2012
Legal elites in Florida are up in arms! Governor Rick Scott is plotting “the biggest judicial power grab in Florida’s history”!
What exactly is Scott’s offense? Why, he’s threatening to “rejec[t] the time-honored and traditional input of the Florida Bar” when it comes to selecting members of the state’s Judicial Nominating Committee. The outrage!
Back in 1971, then-Governor Reubin Askew concocted a system that put legal elites in control of the judicial nominating process. Under his scheme, the governor chose three lawyers to sit on the nominating committee and the Florida Bar chose three members, with three non-lawyers added in for window dressing. The practical result, of course, was to raise the Bar to a position of privilege when it comes to picking judges.
Former Governor Jeb Bush weakened the power of legal special interests by claiming five appointments for himself, with the other four to come from a list submitted by the Bar. Now Scott wants the freedom to name all nine members, which would put the Bar where it belongs – on an equal footing with every other interest group in the state.
Can anyone imagine the Florida Chamber of Commerce claiming a “time-honored and traditional” privilege to dictate the direction of the courts by choosing who will sit on the bench? Or the Florida Medical Association? Or the Florida State Music Teachers Association for that matter. The Bar may be blind to its own arrogance – but Florida’s elected officials are not and they are waging a much-needed battle to reduce the power of unelected, unaccountable lawyers and restore it to representatives of the people.
More “Merit” Selection Judges Behaving Badly
January 9, 2012
Last week, Shira Goodman over at Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts – a charter member of the $45 million+ George Soros campaign to end democratic selection of judges – suggested that the ethical transgression of one Philadelphia Traffic Court judge represented an indictment of judicial elections. This has become a favorite meme of the “merit” selection crowd – but as recent judicial scandals in New Mexico and Missouri demonstrate, judges chosen under secret selection hardly have a monopoly on virtue.
To satisfy myself that I wasn’t being too hasty, I spent about 30 seconds on a Google search this weekend and came up with a few more examples of “merit” selection judges behaving badly. In Maryland, the award goes to Judge Richard Palumbo, who dismissed a protective order against a man who later doused his wife with gasoline and set her on fire. A few months earlier, when the wife appeared before Judge Palumbo and said she wanted an immediate divorce, Palumbo shot back, “I’d like to be 6-foot-5.” A state Senator later accused Judge Palumbo of having an “anti-victim, anti-woman attitude.” Obviously a judge chosen strictly by “merit.”
In Florida, Judge Paul Hawkes resigned last November over charges related to his role in constructing a new $50 million courthouse locals refer to as the “Taj Mahal.” According to news reports, Judge Hawkes “pushed for mahogany walls, granite countertops, and 60-inch television screens in every office.” Hawkes was accused of “destroying public records pertaining to the court’s budget” and browbeating a “furniture vendor” into “underwrit[ing] a trip for Hawkes and two relatives.” Since the Florida judicial nominating commission meets in secret, I guess we’ll never know what “merit” commissioners saw in Judge Hawkes.
I’m not claiming that all judges chosen under “merit” selection are ethically challenged. That would be Shira Goodman-style demagoguery. Instead, I think there are two conclusions any fair-minded observer could draw:
1) Judges are human and prone to the same temptations to abuse power faced by every public servant;
2) We need strong mechanisms to keep judges accountable.
The primary objective of democratic judicial elections is to provide that accountability; the primary objective of “merit” selection is to destroy it.
Sad Race-Baiting in Florida
April 25, 2011
Florida trial lawyer Chuck Hobbs has a piece in the Tallahassee Democrat (subscription required) attacking a measure passed by the Florida House to enhance public accountability in the Florida judiciary by requiring state Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed by the Senate. Hobbs claims that shifting power from the unelected Judicial Nominating Commission to the elected Governor and elected Senators will have a “chilling effect … on the number of minorities and women appointed to the state’s highest court.”
Such blatant race-baiting would be scurrilous under ordinary circumstances, but since it’s so easily disproved in Hobbs’ case it’s merely sad or even pathetic. Hobbs writes that the reforms would leave judicial “nominations and appointments almost entirely in the hands of the governor” – with potentially “malignant” consequences for women and minorities. But just four paragraphs later, Hobbs unveils a laundry list of distinguished women and minority jurists elevated to the bench by governors from both parties in recent decades. How exactly does this prove his point that giving governors more power over judicial appointments would hurt women and minorities?
Even worse than Hobbs’ logic is his denial (or lack of awareness?) of recent history. Back when he was a Republican, former Florida Governor Charlie Crist consistently battled with the state judicial nominating commissions for refusing to send him qualified minority candidates for the bench. On one occasion, Crist sent back the commission’s initial list, noting that at least three well-qualified African Americans had applied. As I pointed out at the time, the commission’s decision to bypass well-qualified minorities led the Florida NAACP to charge that “the specter of discrimination has been raised” by the commission’s actions. Moreover, the NAACP criticized the closed-door nature of the commission’s meetings because it makes it impossible “to investigate misconduct or discrimination within the nominating process.”
Legislators in other states have also recognized that turning judicial selection into a clubby, insider’s game can damage the prospects for well-qualified minority candidates. In Maryland, the Legislative Black Caucus sunk a proposal by the state’s Attorney General to strip power from voters when it comes to choosing judges and install “merit” selection.
So what’s Hobbs’ real beef? Instead of giving ordinary citizens or their elected representatives more power in the judicial nominating process, he wants “further enhancement of a system in which those with the skills to judge the best-qualified candidates have a greater role” in deciding who sits on the bench. (my emphasis)
Yes, you read that right.
What we have here is a case of plain, old-fashioned bigotry against every Floridian without an “Esquire” after their name. Hobbs believes only lawyers like himself have the “skills” to determine who should sit on the bench, so they should be granted a “greater role” or a place of privilege. In his mind, fewer than 1% of Florida’s citizens have the brains or training to decide who is “best qualified” (90,662 Florida lawyers out of 18,500,000 people). I’ll say this in defense of Chuck Hobbs, though: Unlike most “merit” selection supporters who shy away from publicly stating their belief that the “people are stupid,” at least he has the guts to say it.
Reductio Ad Absurdo: “Merit” Selection in Florida
February 18, 2011
Florida Governor Rick Scott’s appointment of Circuit Court Judge Burton Conner to the Florida Court of Appeals is “causing concern” among the legal establishment, according to media reports. Is Judge Conner too inexperienced to serve on the bench? Not according to two other judges who pronounced him “very well qualified.” Did Judge Conner commit some serious ethical breach? Not as far as anyone can tell.
So what’s the problem?
It seems that upon appointing Judge Conner, Governor Scott praised the judge’s “values and judicial conservatism,” along with his “great reputation in the community” and “great law-and-order demeanor.”
Sounds pretty milquetoast to me – the sort of boilerplate that accompanies hundreds of gubernatorial appointments. But not to Florida’s legal grandees.
“Unsettling!” screeched retired Judge Gary Farmer, who recommended Judge Conner for the vacancy. “What it says to me is, the governor has an agenda with judges.”
Judge Roger Colton also scolded Governor Scott: He “should be saying ‘I picked the most knowledgeable, fair, just, equitable candidate.” Well!
Actually, what’s really “unsettling” is the notion that it’s some sort of outrage for a governor to select judges he believes represent the values and judicial philosophy of the people who elected him. Yet this deeply undemocratic notion is one of the central conceits of the entire “merit” selection campaign.
As former Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Clifford Taylor has pointed out, the idea that judicial selection can be reduced to some antiseptic examination of credentials – like who got an A+ in Contracts, rather than just an A back in law school – is, to put it kindly, wishful, naïve and preposterous thinking. In ALL systems of judicial selection, the values, ideological leanings and personal proclivities of SOMEONE dictate who which judges will be chosen. With judicial elections, it’s the people; with gubernatorial appointments, it’s the elected governor who is accountable to the people; under “merit” selection, it’s the commissioners who sit on the nominating boards and are accountable to no one.
The Arrogance of the “Merit” Selection Crowd
January 25, 2011
Newly elected Florida Governor Rick Scott is getting a lesson in who really wields political power in the Sunshine State. Earlier this month, Scott asked the state’s Judicial Nominating Commission to send him more than the four names it originally submitted to fill a judicial vacancy. As the state’s highest elected official, Scott presumably felt the wishes of the people of Florida, expressed through their elected leaders, ought to be taken into account when it comes to selecting their public servants on the bench. The Judicial Nominating Commission disagreed, responding with … well, basically with the middle finger.
According to news reports, “the nine-member commission met, considered the governor’s request and then sent him back the same list of four nominees it approved initially.”
Telling the governor to kiss off is getting to be something of a habit for the unelected, unaccountable Judicial Nominating Commission. A few years back, former Governor Charlie Crist also rejected the initial slate and asked the Commission to send additional nominees. The Commission refused, so the Supreme Court – chosen by the Commission of course – ruled that the governor cannot refuse to choose from the Commission’s hand-picked list. All part of the shockingly arrogant campaign to keep judicial selection a clubby, insiders, lawyers-only game, with no input from the people or the elected representatives.
The Case for Tort Reform in Florida
December 10, 2010
Florida businessman John R. Smith makes a compelling case for tort reform in Florida and demonstrates why seizing the state’s civil justice system from Trial Lawyers Inc. is at the top of the agenda for incoming Governor Rick Scott and the new legislature. Money graphs:
“Lawsuit abuse is a threat to our small businesses, where lawsuit costs drive up the price of goods and services, which consumers pay for. Plaintiff lawyers get rich while economic growth declines. Kids can’t play in schoolyards because of the hundreds of claims for playground accidents. Our reputation dissuades many businesses from locating here, and convinces professionals to move away.
“What’s to be done? Well, I’m a fan of reducing the personal injury bar to rubble, then bringing them to a boil.”
Smith quickly concedes that his “shock and awe” plan for Florida trial lawyers isn’t politically correct, so he’ll settle for capping Powerball-sized damage awards, curbing “junk science” in the courtroom, medical liability reform and other reforms to dissuade frivolous lawsuits.
Elections Have Consequences: Taking Back our Courts from Trial Lawyers Inc.
December 8, 2010
Newly elected governors in Pennsylvania and Florida are counting on strong Republican majorities in their legislatures to quickly push through meaningful tort reform early next year.
In Pennsylvania, Governor-elect Tom Corbett has called on the GOP majority in both houses to deliver a bill within six months. One key reform: reinstating Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act, which modified abusive liability rules that allowed plaintiffs’ lawyers to hold a defendant liable for 100 percent of any damage award even if that defendant was only responsible for 1 percent of an injury. Corbett has also called for an end to venue shopping, which allowed trial lawyers to file claims in tort-friendly jurisdictions. Business groups such as the NFIB and Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association are rallying behind the plan.
In Florida, William Large of the Florida Justice Reform Institute says the election of a Republican supermajority has created a “tremendous opportunity” to pass legislation bottled up for years by the state’s trial bar and its former allies in the legislature. One bill likely on the fast track is a common sense measure that would allow a jury to apportion fault among all responsible parties, not just corporate defendants. As Jose Gonzalez of Associated Industries of Florida told one reporter:
“It’s a fairness issue. Right now, a jury [in an auto liability case] only heard about a faulty seat belt or bad roof. They don’t hear that the driver was on 10 different kinds of drugs and ran off the road.”
Elections have consequences – and it seems one message voters sent this November is that it’s time to take back our courts from Trial Lawyers Inc.
Seizing The Florida Legislature Through Sleaze And Corruption
October 5, 2009
What do you get when you cross two organizations - one sleazy, the other corrupt? Answer: A new redistricting scheme for Florida called FairDistrictsFlorida.org!
According to Sunday’s Orlando Sentinel, some of Florida’s top trial lawyers (whose lobby arm admitted to sending out a racist mailer) in a Florida senate race) and ACORN (enough said) have teamed up to try to seize the Florida legislature from the Republicans. Since they can’t seem to win at the ballot box, they’re spending big $$ to influence the redistricting process, hiding behind the veil of nonpartisanship of course. That act has grown so old even the mainstream media smirks these days, with the Sentinel reporting that “Democrats and left-leaning groups have done the heavy financial lifting so far.”
The goal is to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to hamstring the legislature, which must draw up new state House and Senate districts once the 2010 Census is completed. ACORN was supposed to be a “partner” in collecting data for the 2010 Census, but that partnership was severed last month after ACORN employees were caught on tape advising investigators posing as a pimp and a prostitute how to dodge tax laws.
Census Director Robert Groves said ACORN’s participation “may even become a discouragement to public cooperation, negatively impacting 2010 Census efforts.” Looks like ACORN hasn’t given up on trying to influence the census and redistricting - they’re just attempting to do it through the back door.
ACORN and the Florida trial lawyers should slither back into the swamps where they belong.
Florida Black Caucus Slams Trial Bar Over “Racially Charged” Mailer
September 29, 2009
I guess I wasn’t the only one who found the Florida trial lawyers association’s latest mea culpa hopelessly lame. State Senator Gary Siplin, Chairman of the Florida Legislative Black Caucus recently fired off a letter condemning a sleazy, racist direct mail piece “created, approved and funded” by trial bar that tried to scare away voters in the September Republican state Senate primary with images of Black Panthers and armed thugs.
“The members of the Caucus find the mailing to be deplorable and represents the very worst nature of political campaigning.”
Scott Carruthers, executive director of the trial lawyers lobby, feigned outrage after the fact, even as the group tried desperately to hide their involvement. To his great credit, even though the groups have been allies in the past, Senator Siplin wasn’t buying it:
“It is obvious from the mailer that the FJA, who created, approved and funded this mailer has racially biased proclivities that are manifested in their thinking and actions. There as no need for FJA to invoke these racial images in an overwhelming Republican and non-minority district. [Hopefully Siplin didn't mean to imply the images would be OK in a Democrat or minority district] Therefore, it is our strong desire for FJA to continue to uphold its integrity [if any] and clean house within its association of anyone who spearheaded and/or had any involvement with this controversial mailer …” [emphasis mine]
No word yet from the trial bar about how the house cleaning is going.
Trial Lawyers In Florida Finally Fess Up To Race-Baiting Sleazeball Tactics
September 25, 2009
Florida’s trial lawyers association has finally admitted it was behind a sleazy, racist direct mail piece that tried to scare voters away from the polls in a state Senate race by warning that “armed thugs” and Black Panthers planned to harass them. The Orlando Sentinel has the whole reprehensible story, complete with the trial bar’s pathetic mea culpa.
The executive director of the Florida trial lawyers association, Scott Carruthers, admitted the group’s political operatives approved the piece and paid $69,000 to distribute it to 88,000 homes. Carruthers called the mailer “shameful” and faulted anonymous staffers for “fail[ing] to object” to its racist message.
Nice try, but the apology rings hollow. All along, the trial lawyers lobby tried to hide its attempts to slime candidate John Thrasher, who led the fight for tort reform when he was House Speaker. Wealthy trial lawyers funneled money to a front group called Conservative Citizens for Justice to shield their identities, as I reported in my 9/8 post. Then, after Thrasher won the September 15 primary, the trial lawyers association tried to hush up its involvement by “ignoring a reporter’s requests for information on the flier,” taking a full week to finally acknowledge the group’s complicity in the sleaze campaign.
According to news reports, right after the primary, the trial lawyers lobby “defiantly” said it was trying to “send a message to other candidates in 2010 not to push further tort-reform legislation.” Perhaps it’s time for Florida legislators and Florida voters to “defiantly” inform the trial bar they won’t be cowed by sleazy, racist attempts to trash courageous public servants who believe Florida’s judicial system should serve the people, not the trial bar.