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.
Do I detect a ray of light at the end of the tunnel here?
More like sunshine out of the buttcrack of NYC's legal system?
Nay, this was done by a federal judge.
"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?
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/012806UnconstitutionalJudges.html
http://www.brennancenter.org/programs/downloads/lopeztorres/lopeztorres-decision.pdf
bump
around here, people buy judgeships - literally buy them with campaign $$$s, kickbacks, etc. I am glad to see this ruling.
I'm not too confident this will fix anything.
And awaaaay we go.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
You seem not to understand federalism, the constitution or American history.
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.