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

Skip to comments.

Unconstitutional justice selection?
Dwights Effort ^ | 2/15/06 | Jalexson

Posted on 02/15/2006 1:11:09 PM PST by kathsua

NY Ruling Could Impact Kansas Courts Print E-mail By Jalexson Wednesday, 15 February 2006

By Jalexson

HUTCHINSON, KS -- The recent ruling by federal Judge John Gleeson in Lopez Torres v. New York State Board of Elections, could set the stage for a federal court challenge of some Kansas courts. The specific ruling, however, would not be applicable because of differences in the courts of the two states. The New York case involved the selection of judicial candidates for election to lower courts ( called “supreme courts” in New York ). Although voters choose judges, the mechanism for selecting the candidates had become tightly controlled by party bosses with the result that voters had few real choices.

The case was brought by Judge Margarita Lopez Torres and Common Cause. Judge Gleeson agreed and ordered a temporary change in elections until the legislature had time to act.

The important aspect for Kansas courts is the indication that federal judges will act to change state court systems to rectify questionable practices involving selection of judges. The selection process for Kansas courts at the very top and very bottom could be challenged.

Kansas Supreme Court justices are recommended by a commission and appointed by the governor with no legislative role. This system was chosen 50 years ago after Governor Fred Hall, who had been defeated by George Docking, resigned as governor and had the lieutenant governor appoint him the court to replace a justice who died too late to be replaced at the election. The excuse given for changing from electing judges to appointing them was to prevent a future governor from doing the same thing. However, such abuse could have been prevented by a special election; The more likely reason for the change was the realization that it would be easier for the politically powerful to control the court if justices were appointed. A governor with friends on the nominating commission, including those he appointed, could get himself appointed to the court just as Fred Hall did. The procedure is called “merit selection” but “merit” can be a subjective concept. It is unrealistic to expect this process to recommend justices without regard to their political views, including what they consider to be the appropriate role of the courts. The lack of a legislative role means that a small politically connected group can control the appointment of Kansas Supreme Court justices just as a small group controls selection of trial court judges in New York. Use of a non-elected nominating group shuts the people out of the selection process. Allowing the governor to make a unilateral selection gives the governor too much control. Ask yourself if you would want a president like Bill Clinton or George W. Bush appointing U.S. Supreme Court justices without getting Senate approval. It might be possible for a citizen's group to challenge the selection process directly through a federal lawsuit ... or citizens or the Kansas Attorney General might suggest that the selection process should disqualify the Kansas Supreme Court from making decisions on politically oriented decisions, such as the one it made on school finance last year. (Editor's Note: Part 2, to be published later in the week, addresses municipal courts.)

Comments


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: constitution; governor; justices; kansas; margaritatorres; newyork; selection; supremecourt
I had never thought about selection of judges being possibly unconstitutional, but I guess it is possible. I think all judges should be elected by the people anyway because this is supposed to be a democracy.
1 posted on 02/15/2006 1:11:11 PM PST by kathsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kathsua

We're a representative republic.


2 posted on 02/15/2006 1:16:49 PM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

IIRC, even our Senators were selected by state legislators, not the people, prior to one of the ammendments.


3 posted on 02/15/2006 1:19:29 PM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

"I think all judges should be elected by the people anyway because this is supposed to be a democracy."

Actually, it's not.

It's a 'representative Republic'.

Although you may 'democratically' elect representatives to Congress, the President is selected by the total number 'Electoral Votes' he receives.

If this was not the case, then the people in the most populated cities and states would essentially control who becomes President.

Federal Judges are selected by the President and voted upon by the Senate.

Citizens voting on who becomes a Federal Judge would not be a wise idea, and why the founders setup our Constitution the way it is, to avoid corruption.


4 posted on 02/15/2006 1:19:52 PM PST by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2
Citizens voting on who becomes a Federal Judge would not be a wise idea

And here in Pennsylvania, we elect our judges and raise such to a supreme level of absurdity. Candidates are not allowed to discuss their judicial views, but voters are supposed to decide who is the best choice? The judgeships often become political rewards.

5 posted on 02/15/2006 1:22:01 PM PST by dirtboy (I'm fat, I sleep most of the winter and I saw my shadow yesterday. Does that make me a groundhog?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy


"Candidates are not allowed to discuss their judicial views, but voters are supposed to decide who is the best choice?"

But isn't this the exact same arguement on the Federal level?

Democrats are constantly screaming 'where do you stand on so and so?', even though they understand that if a candidate answers it could jeopardize either their nomination or taint the outlook on a possible up coming case.

Citzens have elected their local Judges since the inception of the U.S., but Federal and State Justices are generally appointed (through either the Senate or the State Assembly) by the President or Governor.


"The judgeships often become political rewards."

Especially in States controlled by one party.



6 posted on 02/15/2006 1:31:28 PM PST by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2
But isn't this the exact same arguement on the Federal level?

Not really. You have judicial nominees vetted by the executive and reviewed by the legislature, and most have voting records to get a sense of their views towards jurisprudence.

Whereas a crooked lawyer got elected to the Texas Supreme Court just because his last name was very similar to that of a famous Texas politician.

7 posted on 02/15/2006 1:34:12 PM PST by dirtboy (I'm fat, I sleep most of the winter and I saw my shadow yesterday. Does that make me a groundhog?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

Democracy is a BAAAAD thing. You need to get that through your head. Democracy is mob rule, something we are altogether too close to.


8 posted on 02/15/2006 1:35:55 PM PST by Little Ray (I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
this is supposed to be a democracy.

No it is not. Time to pull out your old high school US government book.

9 posted on 02/15/2006 1:45:08 PM PST by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." ;)


10 posted on 02/15/2006 1:51:04 PM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kathsua

They're currently fighting about this in our legislature thanks to the Supreme Court imposing its will on how schools are financed.

The senate is downright PO'ed and is pushing for legislation to require senate approval for justices.


11 posted on 02/15/2006 1:51:57 PM PST by Crazieman (6-23-2005, Establishment of the United Socialist States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
Democracy is a BAAAAD thing.

Do you oppose our method of selecting our Representatives?

They are, (slight shudder), democratically elected.

12 posted on 02/15/2006 1:54:38 PM PST by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes

Our US Senators used to be elected by the state legislators.
This was changed by one of the ammendments some time back, and is largely responsible for the current mess we're in.

Remember, Democracy is when you pass laws by public opinion (voting).
Representation is when you elect representatives to make your laws.

Big diffrenece.


13 posted on 02/15/2006 2:07:13 PM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE
Our US Senators used to be elected by the state legislators.

Do you long for the day when the common man was cut out of the electoral process?

14 posted on 02/15/2006 2:09:45 PM PST by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes

1. What do you mean by "common man"? All Americans should participate in the electoral process. "One man, one vote", unless you decide not to exercise that right.
2. Election of US Senators by the state legislatures was written into The Constitution from the very beginning. It was only after certain parties decided that the sheeple were more easily fooled did they make an end-run around the legislatures. Look at the circus of Senators that has resulted. Who do you think is responsible for the vast majority of pork barrel (earmarked) projects?
3. If the "common man" were smart, he'd pay more attention to local city and state elections. Remember the saying, "All politics are local."


15 posted on 02/15/2006 4:37:50 PM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE
1. What do you mean by "common man"? All Americans should participate in the electoral process. "One man, one vote", unless you decide not to exercise that right.

So you don't have a problem with Democracy?

2. Election of US Senators by the state legislatures was written into The Constitution from the very beginning. It was only after certain parties decided that the sheeple were more easily fooled did they make an end-run around the legislatures. Look at the circus of Senators that has resulted. Who do you think is responsible for the vast majority of pork barrel (earmarked) projects?

I think all Legislation regarding spending originates in the House of Representatives.

3. If the "common man" were smart, he'd pay more attention to local city and state elections. Remember the saying, "All politics are local."

Local govenment is much more democratic than state and federal government.

16 posted on 02/15/2006 5:23:27 PM PST by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
Maxine Waters. 'nuff said.


Representatives are supposed to be democratically elected. The Senate is supposed to be a curb on "democratic" impulses. As it stands, it is not.

I guess what I really object to is our method of selecting our voters...
17 posted on 02/16/2006 5:28:12 AM PST by Little Ray (I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
Do you long for the day when the common man was cut out of the electoral process?

The common man has little to do with today's government. But it used to be that the Senate allowed state governments to have a certain amount of "veto power" over the federal government. I don't think a state-legislature-appointed Senate would have been too happy about the federal government trying to take away the state legislatures' power.

18 posted on 02/19/2006 11:30:20 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kathsua
I think federal judges should be elected too. Lifetime tenure grants them too much power. To safeguard judicial independence, judges would be allowed to run for two ten year terms. That would strike a balance between an impartial judiciary and accountability to the people. Judges are not our masters, they are our servants. And a lot of them have lost sight of it.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

19 posted on 02/19/2006 11:34:56 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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