[BigEdLB]

Believe it or not, we in California have such a law as well. We rid ourselves of Rose Bird, appinted by Jerry Brown the when he was governor in the late 70s. She found any lame excuse to overturn death penalties, then when she lost, her concession was whining about "not wanting a court of death". Impartiality? I don't think so.

O'Connor was too insulated for far too long to understand why people would want activist judges out. It is a we the people moment!

Rule of law only works when EVERYONE observes it. Even the judiciary.

[Publius]

It was not only Rose Bird, but Maurice Grodin and Cruz Reynoso – all Jerry Brown appointees – whom the voters turned out of office in 1986 in reconfirmation elections.

In 1986, there were a number of PAC’s that were agitating for the rejection of one or more of those California Supreme Court justices. Another agitated for the rejection of Stanley Mosk, a Pat Brown appointee from the Sixties, who was a liberal judge also up for a reconfirmation vote. It was thought that the California Republican Party would stay out of the fray.

So it was something of a surprise when Gov. George Deukmejian, who was up for re-election in 1986, asked the leaders of the various PAC’s to meet with him in Sacramento. The leaders thought that Deukmejian was going to let them down, and they were quite surprised when he asked them to combine their PAC’s, concentrate on Bird, Grodin and Reynoso, and leave Mosk alone.

His reasoning was simple. Mosk was one of the most respected jurists on any state supreme court, and he was also a canny politician. Going after Mosk would make the effort look too radical and create a large target for the national press. Better to leave Mosk alone, and explain that they were giving him a pass because he was an honest liberal. Bird, Grodin and Reynoso, on the other hand, could be targeted as radical liberals.

Deukmejian also told the PAC leaders that after they merged, all their advertising would have to be vetted by party professionals, lest they say something radical enough to discredit the movement. If they agreed to this, Deukmejian would provide the full support of the party and make the removal of the three justices a plank of the party platform and his campaign.

The Los Angeles Times issued a smarmy editorial explaining to the unsophisticated voters of Southern California that the provision in the California Constitution permitting confirmation votes for justices was a terrible mistake, and the citizens of the state had a moral obligation to vote for reconfirmation no matter what they thought about the justices’ politics. That editorial blew up in their face.

Bird lost by 3-to-1, and the other two justices lost by 2-to-1. It was one of the few moments of clarity in California politics.