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.
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.”
“Merit” Selection Commissioner Plays Politics in Florida
April 17, 2012
Remember how Justice at Stake and the rest of the Soros-bankrolled “merit” selection gang always assure us that “merit” commissions are dedicated solely to keeping “politics” out of the courtroom? Well, apparently a couple of those supposedly nonpartisan commissioners in Florida haven’t gotten the message.
It seems that Bob Butterworth, a member of the Judicial Nominating Commission and former Attorney General, is also serving as the co-chairman of Florida Supreme Court Justice Fred Lewis’ re-election campaign. Butterworth’s name even appears on a couple fundraising “invitations.”
According to news reports, Butterworth fought a proposed prohibition on campaign activities by commission members: “I felt like my rights were taken away. I’m glad they didn’t take away my right to vote.” Of course, Butterworth expressed no regret that the “merit” selection panel on which he serves disenfranchises every Florida voter when it comes to choosing judges. Cue the tiny violins.
Analysis Shows Widespread Discontent with “Merit” Selection
April 12, 2012
Bill Raftery at Gavel to Gavel (sounds like Gavel Grab, but not the same) has an interesting analysis of legislation introduced in states across America to change the way judges are selected. According to Raftery’s review, at least 9 states considered measures in the most recent legislative sessions that would have significantly modified or even eliminated “merit” selection – part of a growing body of evidence that more people are beginning to understand the fatal flaws in this lawyer-driven system. Some of the proposed changes include:
- Arizona legislators considered bills to change the composition of “merit” selection panels and to end “merit” selection altogether.
- In Florida, legislators proposed changing the composition of “merit” selection panels to make them more accountable.
- Hawaii took up legislation to increase the transparency of “merit” selection commissions by providing more public disclosure of their activities.
- In Indiana, the legislation was introduced to abolish “merit” selection.
- Iowa legislators also considered bills that would end “merit” selection.
- In Kansas, several bills to end “merit” selection were introduced.
- In Missouri, multiple bills were introduced to end “merit” selection and increase accountability for “merit” selection commissions.
- Oklahoma legislators considered legislation to end “merit” selection and make “merit” selection commissions more accountable.
- In Tennessee, over a dozen bills were introduced to end “merit” selection, make the system more accountable and reduce the power of legal special interest groups in judicial selection.
Once entrenched, “merit” selection is extremely difficult to modify or replace. State bar associations and other legal special interests fight every effort to reduce their control over the process. Yet the fact that so many state legislators have come to the conclusion that “merit” selection is an inherently un-democratic and unaccountable way to pick judges suggests that the system’s foundation has some pretty serious cracks.
Impeachment Calls and “Merit” Selection: Two Liberal Responses to Conservative Courts
April 12, 2012
More blow-back over President’s Obama’s attempt to force his political opinions on the Supreme Court – this time from Steve Chapman at the Chicago Tribune. Chapman dismisses proposals to impeach justices who don’t toe the liberal party line and then concludes with the only legitimate method for shaping the direction of courts – winning the public to your view of the appropriate judicial philosophy.
“There is another way to respond when the court goes against your side: Win elections, appoint your justices and, over time, hope to win the intellectual battle over how to interpret the Constitution and the laws.
“That’s what conservatives set about doing a generation ago, and the result is a court dominated by GOP-appointed justices who take a different view of constitutional language. Obama and Co. may not like it, but that’s exactly how our system is supposed to work.
“If they don’t like it, they can undertake the same task in hopes of turning the court in a more agreeable direction. No, it’s not easy; no, it’s not quick; no, it’s not a sure thing. Who ever said it ought to be?”
Calls by the Hysterical Left to impeach justices are just response to conservative success in promoting a more conservative judicial philosophy. “Merit” selection is another. Liberals know left-wing judges can’t win open, fair elections – so they propose getting rid of elections altogether and rigging the judicial selection process to shut out conservative judges.
Academic Opposition to “Merit” Selection in Pennsylvania
April 9, 2012
University of Pittsburgh political science Professor Chris Bonneau makes the case against the proposal to shift to “merit” selection in Pennsylvania. Highlights:
“Proponents of [merit selection] argue that it would remove the influence of money from the judiciary, as well as safeguard its impartiality. But empirical research does not support that theory and none of the proposed benefits of the plan – depoliticized elections, increased legitimacy, higher quality of courts – has been found true.”
“[T]he [merit selection] process benefits the elites with the most control over the legal profession at the expense of the electorate.”
“[R]etention elections deprive voters of meaningful choice. Voters might not like Justice A, but they have no idea who her replacement would be if she were voted out of office. Perhaps Justice A is preferable to Justice B, but not potential Justice C. How does the voter decide? In essence, these elections effectively disenfranchise the electorate.”
Obama vs. SCOTUS
April 6, 2012
Devastating take-down of President Obama’s attack on the U.S. Supreme Court by must-read columnist Charles Krauthammer. To Obama’s assertion that overturning Obamacare would amount to an “unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Krauthammer responds:
“‘Unprecedented’? Judicial review has been the centerpiece of the American constitutional system since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. ‘Strong majority’? The House has 435 members. In March 2010, Democrats held a 75-seat majority. Obamacare passed by seven votes.”
“Obamacare passed the Congress without a single vote from the opposition party – in contradistinction to Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid, similarly grand legislation, all of which enjoyed substantial bipartisan support. In the Senate, moreover, Obamacare squeaked by through a parliamentary maneuver called reconciliation that was never intended for anything so sweeping. The fundamental deviation from custom and practice is not the legal challenge to Obamacare but the very manner of its enactment.”
By the way, still no complaints about Obama’s pre-emptive political strike against SCOTUS from those self-appointed guardians of judicial independence in the “merit” selection gang. Instead, the gavel grabbers at Justice at Stake actually had the nerve to criticize judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as “politically engaged” because they asked the Justice Department to explain its boss’s absurd, constitutionally-juvenile contention that the Supreme Court lacks the power to overturn unconstitutional laws.
Uphold Obamacare…Or Face Impeachment!
April 5, 2012
In a remarkable screed on The Daily Beast, University of Houston Law Professor David Dow calls for impeaching any justice who dares to vote for overturning Obamacare. Declaring the health care law unconstitutional, Dow believes, would be just the “latest salvo” in the Roberts Court’s “sustained effort” to return America to the “Gilded Age” – the days where women could not vote, African-Americans were legally segregated and corporations forced employees to work in virtual slavery. If impeachment fails, Dow proposes reviving FDR’s court-packing scheme or creating term limits for justices.
Dow’s attack on the Roberts Court makes the critique of the three Iowa justices ousted by voters look like playground banter. Back in 2010, that critique brought forth a torrent of indignation and protest from the “merit” selection gang about dangerous threats to judicial independence in America.
Does the stunning silence of the “merit” selection crowd in the face of blatant attempts by Dow and others to intimidate justices into conforming with their ideological preferences undercut their credibility as defenders of judicial independence? Or am I just being cynical?
Where is Sandra Day O’Connor When You Need Her?
April 4, 2012
For years, the scolds that define the “merit” selection campaign have taken to the soapbox to decry “politics” in the courtroom. So earlier this week when President Obama launched a “pre-emptive strike,” as Politico put it, and “inject[ed] a high-level dose of politics” into the U.S. Supreme Court’s deliberations over the fate of the Obama health care law, you’d expect Sandra Day O’Connor and the Soros-machine to be cranking out condemnations, right? After all, what could be a greater threat to judicial independence than having the Supreme Court threatened before a ruling has even been issued by the most powerful man in the world?
Instead, radio silence.
In fact, some “merit” selection cheerleaders joined in the unprecedented attack on the Supreme Court. As usual, the New York Times set the bar for hysteria, warning Chief Justice Roberts that a decision to strike down Obamacare would be equivalent to the Court “declaring itself virtually unfettered by the law” and hyperventilating that no court has shown itself “less restrained in signaling its willingness to replace law made by Congress with law made by justices.” With her characteristic charm and wit, Times columnist Maureen Dowd dismissed the Roberts’ Court as a bunch of “hacks dressed up in black robes.” Roberts himself is labeled a “crimson partisan”; Justice Scalia is branded as “venomous”; Justice Alito mocked as “insufferable”; and Justice Thomas accused of having “lied his way onto the court.”
But wait a minute. Isn’t this the same paper that applauded the Iowa’s Supreme Court decision to “replace law made by Congress [in this case, the Iowa legislature] with law made by justices” when it overturned the state’s defense of marriage act? Didn’t the Gray Lady admonish Iowa voters just weeks before election day that exercising their constitutional right not to retain three of those justices would amount to “a chilling message to judges beyond Iowa’s borders to beware of rendering opinions that some voter blocks might dislike”?
For her part, former Justice O’Connor rushed to the defense of the Iowa Supremes, stumping on their behalf in a failed attempt to prevent them from being unceremoniously dumped by the state’s voters. But if she roused herself to defend the integrity of her former colleagues, I haven’t heard about it.
Of course, it’s her right to sit on the sidelines when the President of the United States and the “paper of record” launch political attacks on the nation’s highest court. But her deafening silence – along with the rest of the Soros crowd – gives the lie for all time to the nauseatingly self-righteous pretense that “merit” selection has anything to do with keeping “politics” out of the courtroom.