Supreme Court Throws Out Speech Restraints on Minnesota Judicial Candidates

Minneapolis Star Tribune ^ | 6/28/02 | Kevin Diaz & Robert Whereatt

[Paul Ross]

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Judicial election campaigns in Minnesota and around the country will feel a lot more like other political contests, under a ruling Thursday by the U.S. Supreme Court in a Minnesota case.

The 5-4 decision struck down a Minnesota rule limiting what judicial candidates may tell voters.

[Paul Ross]

Finally! We lawyers have been expecting this one for a long time! This decision is actually more sweeping than the article implies. The Minnesota Canon embodying the "announce clause" restrictions on judges free speech, is lifted straight out of the ABA Model Rules, which most states have incorporated. Ergo, having struck down the Announce Clause in Minnesota, have implicitly struck down the ABA's...and all of the states relying upon it. ALL of them will now have judges that can "announce" their positions. Let Free Speech reign. This is the only way we will get conservative judges. LET THE SUN SHINE IN! (or Process Transparency for those who are hung up on buzz words).

[Paul Ross]

The Minnesota Supreme Court issued a rare statement Thursday saying that while "the highest court in the land has spoken," the state court would "continue to support impartiality, and a high level of integrity and competence in Minnesota judges. These principles are the very life-blood of the public's trust and confidence in the judiciary."

The Minnesota Supreme Court herein has more or less announced its defiance -- ala the Florida Supreme Court in Gore v. Bush --- so we can anticipate it still trying to throw up roadblocks against Free Speech, even though the Supreme Court posse has already headed them off at the pass....having determined that 'impartiality' is in fact not a compelling state interest that can be used to deny a core freedom.

[hchutch]

This does not bode well for McCain-Feingold.

[Paul Ross]

I hope you're right!

[TheCPA]

Great decision for the First Amendment. We need more decisions like this. Prior restraint on free speech still exists in too many commercial settings.

[detsaoT]

REDICULOUS! What POSSIBLE legal statute does the FEDERAL Supreme Court cite supporting this UNCONSTITUTIONAL intrusion into STATE law?! If the State of Minnesota wishes to overturn this law, THEN LET THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE DO SO! THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE THAT IS WITHIN SCOTUS' LEGAL JURISDICTION!!

:/ ttt

[biggerten]

Try this one, from the Bill of Rights-

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[TheCPA]

I think we need to tack the 14th Amendment onto the First Amendment because it was the state, not Congress, that was trying to infringe on free speech. From the 14th Amendment: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

[TheCPA]

The First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[Free the USA]

Bump list

[detsaoT]

Congress shall make no law...

The Congress of the United States did NOT make this law. The Legislature of Minnesota did. If the people of Minnesota want to change this law, then they should go through their courts, and through their Legislature. It is none of the Federal Government's business to remedy this.

(And yes, I do think that much of the case law we've developed in the past 100 years is illegitimate.)

:) ttt

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The decision helps remove some of the black robe mystery the jurists have developed over the years. Actually takes them down a peg, which is good.

[shrinkermd]

Whenever you find someone or some organization that claims it is "objective" and its basic beliefs cannot be queried, you have a situation where there is a striving for both moral superiority and power. Journalists and Judges are notorious for claiming thusly. They then go on to impress their private views on all by any means fair or foul. At the same time they believe they are above reproach and are wounded whenever they are challenged as to their beliefs. This truism applies to professionals and especially mental health professionals. No one escapes being influenced by their beliefs.

[Paul Ross]

The Congress of the United States did NOT make this law. The Legislature of Minnesota did...

Wrong. Actually the Legislature had nothing to do with the unconstitutional Canon 5, it was implemented by judicial fiat by the Minnesota Supreme Court. So if you wanted to challenge this judicially, as a candidate, you were muzzled from saying anything about. Catch 22. A priori political censorship.

[Paul Ross]

Indeed, they do think they are above reproach on the Minnesota Supreme Court. This same truism was also manifested by the Florida Supreme Court who actually took umbrage at the US Supremes deigning to review their attempted theft of an election.