Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pols get benched (Federal judge rules that party judge picks unconstitutional in NY)
NY DAILY NEWS ^ | January 28, 2006 | JOHN MARZULLI

Posted on 01/29/2006 6:46:11 PM PST by neverdem

Party judge picks unconstitutional

In a stunning blow to political party bosses, a federal judge last night ruled that the process for selecting state Supreme Court justices is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to back-room wheeling and dealing.

Brooklyn Federal Judge John Gleeson junked the century-old practice of holding nominating conventions controlled by Democratic and Republican leaders, and directed the state Legislature to enact a new system for selecting judicial candidates.

Gleeson's decision came in a lawsuit brought by nine people, a mix of Democrats and Republicans including Brooklyn Surrogate Judge Margarita Lopez Torres, who contended the current system cheats voters and blocks challengers who lack the support of the county bosses.

"The plaintiffs have demonstrated convincingly that local major party leaders ... control who becomes a Supreme Court justice and when," Gleeson wrote in a 77-page decision. "The result is an opaque, undemocratic selection procedure that violates the rights of the voters and the rights of candidates."

Gleeson issued an injunction striking down the convention system and directed that Supreme Court justices be nominated by primary elections until a new, unspecified system is in place.

"It's hard to think of a more revolutionary decision because it shifts our power to choose judges from our political leaders back to the people," said lawyer Burt Neuborn of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, which represented the plaintiffs.

The decision was released at 5 p.m., catching party honchos off guard.

A spokesman for state Democratic chairman Herman (Denny) Farrell, who also is the Manhattan party leader, said it was premature to say whether party lawyers would seek a stay of the injunction from the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Michael Reich, a spokesman for Queens Democratic Chairman Thomas Manton, said, "We will review the decision to see what is necessary for us, as a party, to do that will ensure the democratic process."

Gleeson noted that the conventions merely rubber-stamp judicial selections already made by the bosses. "No one can get elected Supreme Court justice in [Manhattan] without Farrell's support," he concluded.

In Brooklyn, disgraced Democratic leader Clarence Norman refused to support Torres' bid for the Supreme Court bench because she refused to hire an unqualified party-backed attorney as her law secretary.

"The party leaders, having in their view placed Torres on the [civil court bench in 1992], also felt entitled to place employees in her chambers," Gleeson wrote.

Torres told the Daily News last night that "something more than party loyalty" should be the basis for selecting candidates.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; US: New York
KEYWORDS: judges; newyork; ny; statesupremecourt

1 posted on 01/29/2006 6:46:12 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Do I detect a ray of light at the end of the tunnel here?


2 posted on 01/29/2006 6:48:03 PM PST by Inspector Kemp (You can lead a liberal to reality, but you can't make them think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Inspector Kemp

More like sunshine out of the buttcrack of NYC's legal system?


3 posted on 01/29/2006 6:50:48 PM PST by xcamel (Exposing clandestine operations is treason. 13 knots make a noose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

Nay, this was done by a federal judge.


4 posted on 01/29/2006 6:52:33 PM PST by Gordongekko909 (I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Inspector Kemp

"Do I detect a ray of light at the end of the tunnel here?"

Wow, my initial reaction is I don't know if I like this or not. I can see good arguments on both sides. Anyone have a link to the ruling yet?


5 posted on 01/29/2006 6:52:56 PM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ndt

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/012806UnconstitutionalJudges.html

http://www.brennancenter.org/programs/downloads/lopeztorres/lopeztorres-decision.pdf


6 posted on 01/29/2006 7:00:40 PM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

bump


7 posted on 01/29/2006 7:15:01 PM PST by lowbridge (All that is needed for evil to triumph is for "RINOS" to do something)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

around here, people buy judgeships - literally buy them with campaign $$$s, kickbacks, etc. I am glad to see this ruling.


8 posted on 01/29/2006 7:39:02 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I'm not too confident this will fix anything.


9 posted on 01/29/2006 7:43:50 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Brooklyn Federal Judge John Gleeson junked the century-old practice of holding nominating conventions controlled by Democratic and Republican leaders, and directed the state Legislature to enact a new system for selecting judicial candidates.

And awaaaay we go.

10 posted on 01/29/2006 7:47:19 PM PST by gov_bean_ counter (It is easy to call for a pi$$ing contest when you aren't going to be in the line of fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I'm not too confident this will fix anything.

What was dumped stank to heaven. The judges had as many endorsements from parties across the political spectrum as possible. Sometimes it was only the same name for all parties. In that case, I wouldn't vote for an office that someone who would win by default. Why bother?

11 posted on 01/29/2006 8:07:31 PM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ndt

What is a federal judge doing ruling on a decision about how the state selects is own Supreme Court justices?

What jurisdiction does the federal government have over this matter or is this another example of federal activism like last month when a federal court wouldn't let a state legislature decide if its own members had been legitimately elected?


12 posted on 01/29/2006 9:16:36 PM PST by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: old republic
What is a federal judge doing ruling on a decision about how the state selects is own Supreme Court justices?

My thought, exactly. The selection of state judges is a matter for the State of New York to decide, and is none of the federal government's business.

13 posted on 01/29/2006 9:19:51 PM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: old republic
"What is a federal judge doing ruling on a decision about how the state selects is own Supreme Court justices? "

Like I said, I'm not sure if I like it or not. If it is truly a constitutional issue, then it would trump states rights, if not then as per the 10th it would be a state issue.

Until I have a chance to read the court decision (longer than I expected) I'm withholding an opinion.
14 posted on 01/29/2006 9:36:31 PM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: old republic

While we need to see the case which brought this to the Court I would guess that jurisdiction involves the denial of rights to the agrieved party.


15 posted on 01/30/2006 1:42:17 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: old republic; Always A Marine

My thoughts exactly. The federal courts should not have jurisdiction in this matter. Let the people of NY clean up their mess. More judicial tyranny. At some point, who knows when, a state legislator or governor will publicly tell a federal judge to stuff his unconstitutional decision where the sun doesn't shine. Our republic will be better for that day.


16 posted on 01/30/2006 3:03:16 PM PST by Jacquerie (Democrats soil institutions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

I would guess that it is someone trying to misconstrue the Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Generally, I find that kind of argument very unconvincing in this type of situation though.


17 posted on 01/30/2006 5:37:20 PM PST by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: old republic; Always A Marine
"What is a federal judge doing ruling on a decision about how the state selects is own Supreme Court justices? What jurisdiction does the federal government have over this matter or is this another example of federal activism like last month when a federal court wouldn't let a state legislature decide if its own members had been legitimately elected?"

Do you want the correct answer or the politically correct answer?

PC Answer: Why, Baker v. Carr ensures that every political office is fairly voted upon by the electorate under the fundamental rule of one man, one vote, and enshrining the Constitutional guarantee that each state have a republican form of government.

Correct Answer: The judge is doing exactly what you fear, saying, "Federalism takes it up the back door, the state bosses better figure out quick who really runs the show--it's FEDERAL bosses, us judges."

18 posted on 01/30/2006 10:55:21 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (Freedom isn't free--no, there's a hefty f'in fee--and if you don't throw in your buck-oh-five, who w)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile

You seem not to understand federalism, the constitution or American history.


19 posted on 01/31/2006 7:07:57 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson