A Turning Point for New York Courts [Federal judge exposes Dem sham of how judges are chosen in NYS

NYT Editorial ^ | Feb, 4, 2006 | NYT Editors

[summer]

Thanks for pinging those people on your list.

[Sweetjustusnow]

" If the GOP had not taken over the education issue, this nepotism in education would continue forever."

Almost all local government is full of nepotism and it shows. Government doesn't seem to care as much about qualifications as they do putting this person or that persons family member to work for them. That goes for the post offices too. Government hires people that are incompetent nut jobs. And the GOP is seldom any different.

[summer]

You may have a point, but that has not been my experience in education. As far as I know -- and I didn't always know this -- education is run primarily by Democrats. And, you can find PLENTY of unqualified relatives of Dems in teaching or education admin everywhere you look. Also, for the most part, they are proud of the nepotism of hiring and promoting incompetents over others. Had I known all this years ago, I would have never wanted to become a teacher, because meti, brains, qualifications -- it all means nothing. And for that reason, I never again want to hear about higher pay being necessary to attract better people to the teaching profession. Better people try to become teachers, but the nepotism that reigns supreme makes sure the door is never open to others. So, the "better people" often have no choice but to leave. Higher salary or no higher salary. You can't live on just air.

[summer]

meti = merit

[summer]

And, by the way, you may also have a valid point with respect to this judicial matter, but -- the lawsuit that exposed this matter concerned Dems, and, NYS judges ARE primarily Dems. That much I do know.

[summer]

And, I should add: I know it NOW about NYS judges, but, I didn't know always know it. Another part of the NYT called these judges exactly what they really are: hacks. Hacks should not be in the position of judging. Yet, that's what hacks do in NYS. I'm glad this federal judge had a problem with maintaining that status quo.

If you really wanted to clean up education, you'd have to get rid of a lot of hacks, too. But, mass firings do not appear to be on the horizon.

[summer]

From elewhere in the editorial I posted:

...Judge Gleeson reasons that to pass constitutional muster, a system of judicial elections must afford qualified candidates a reasonable opportunity to compete and offer voters a meaningful say. Whether higher courts would agree entirely with his approach is uncertain. But his unflattering depiction of the hack-infested convention system and its undermining of the quality of the state's judiciary leaves the State Board of Elections and the local party organizations with no good reason to appeal...

Replace with "hack-infested local school district system" in that bold sentence and you get an accurate picture of what goes on in certain school districts.

[firebrand]

letting party leaders anoint candidates for State Supreme Court judgeships at sharply controlled nominating conventions

Again the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. There's nothing wrong with judicial conventions per se. It's the anointing that's infuriating. And they do the same with candidates for other offices. Conventions should be conventions, not satanic rituals.

[summer]

...and its undermining of the quality of the education system...

[summer]

I think this is the first step to reform, and any reform is desperately needed in the NYS judicial system. Surely political hacks will find some creative ways to ensure that not everything that needs to get done will actually get done. But, it's a hopeful first step here.

[summer]

Also, I have to still disagree with you -- the GOP has been very good in pushing for reform in education, and had the GOP not pushed for high quality federal laws for teachers, the nepotism would truly continue as rampant as it had been in education. The Dems were never going to change a system of nepotism in education. That's one reason they fought that high quality teacher federal law tooth and nail. And still fight it -- because it interfers with their patronage system.

[AndyJackson]

Since when do the Federal courts have the jurisdiction to control how judges are selected within the Sates?

First they didn't. They just rule that the NY system violates this thing in the 14th called equal protection and due process, and tell the state to fix it.

[Sweetjustusnow]

Hey, I'm not saying that the GOP doesn't have anything going for it, I'm just saying that they aren't a whole lot cleaner on the Dem's in this issue. Thankfully there are those, (and if we keep backing and putting them in office, and getting rid of the rino's etc.) in the GOP who are making the changes. They definately deserve our support. I think too that it is important to continually support those GOPers that are working against the currents. They are in the vipers nests. In the trenches and doing what needs to be done.

[Southack]

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
The New York Times

September 7, 2002 Saturday
Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 14

LENGTH: 524 words

HEADLINE: For Civil Court in Brooklyn

BODY:

Of the 18 Civil Court judgeships up for election in New York City this
November, only six are being contested in next week's Democratic primary. As a
practical matter, that means the remaining dozen seats will be filled by men and
women deeply beholden to the party pols who gave them a berth on the Democratic
line and a virtually uncontested ride into office. It also means further
reinforcement of the cozy courthouse-clubhouse ties that have invited serious
abuses in the awarding of lucrative courthouse patronage by State Supreme Court
justices, just one level above Civil Court.

[summer]

Thanks for posting that. I would just add that it seems obvious to me that any "abuses" which may be "invited" by this system are bound to remain long after the initial patronage hiring/appointment.

[summer]

I'm just saying that they aren't a whole lot cleaner on the Dem's in this issue.

I don't know that to be true -- her federal lawsuit did not mention the GOP. But, it did mention her own party, the Dems.

[summer]

RE your post #52 - Thanks for your post.

[summer]

I believe the differential pay for science and math teachers is less important than some of the bigger issues,

Well, I mentioned it as the issue "right now" and it is in fact quite current, as it's on the fron page of the NYT again, due to GW's newest remarks on the subject. But, I hear ya. The union is basically against everything it seems.

[Southack]

"I don't know that to be true -- her federal lawsuit did not mention the GOP. But, it did mention her own party, the Dems."

Nope, and you won't understand the NY Times' staff if you think like that. She's not a Democrat...she's to the **left** of Democrats (hence, the NY Times loves her). She's in the WFP.

Here's the NY Times, in its own words, describing her: "A party pariah, she tried repeatedly to get a Democratic nomination for Supreme Court, even breaching protocol by asking to go before the party organization's judicial screening committee -- which tended to ''screen'' candidates after party leaders had selected them. She couldn't even learn if she had passed muster.

The judge ran for Supreme Court in 2003 as the candidate of the Working Families Party, inevitably losing to the Democratic nominee."

[summer]

I don't know where you got that quoted text from, as I didn't see a link and I didn't see that in the editorial. But, whatever party she's from -- whatever party -- she's the one who brought down this system. A system in desperate need of being brought down. So, for that, I have to admire her, and I do.

What's also very interesting to me is this part of your post:

which tended to ''screen'' candidates after party leaders had selected them. She couldn't even learn if she had passed muster.

This is exactly the same process now being used by those school districts with the worst reputations for nepotism. They need a new way to "screen out" for no reason people who do not "fit" their "profile." If these school districts were airline pulling this profile crap, the Dem Party would be screaming like crazy, but since it's school districts, following the same ploy used by the Dem Party in this bogus judicial process in NY, no one says boo.

These school districts now buy their profiling tool from the Gallup Poll, and it's called "Teacher Insight" which is a real misnomer if there ever was one. It gives no teacher any "insight" (and no feedback) and it does not ask questions that are knowledge related. Instead, it asks "opinions" and if your opinions allegedly "match" those "opinions" of the school district, then, allegedly, the school district considers your application eligible for consideration.

But, I guess a school district could just as well easily use it to screen out those of the wrong political party affiliation, the wrong skin color, the wrong age, whatever. No one has complained about this newest barrier against new teachers, except teachers switching districts who now find that suddenly they are not "qualified" due to this "tool."

It's really sad that Dems get away with this stuff, and recreate the same bogus ploys they use in one field in yet another field. Really sad.