Groups threatening recall of Nevada Supreme Court justices

KRNV News ^ | July 17, 03 | Associated Press

[churchillbuff]

Groups threatening recall of Nevada Supreme Court justices

A recall effort could be launched as early as today against one or more Nevada Supreme Court justices.

No official notice has been filed. But Nevadans for Tax Restraint says there'll be a rally to highlight the issue at 4:30 Thursday afternoon at the Grant Sawyer state building in Las Vegas.

Conservative groups including the Nevada Eagle Forum and the Republican Liberty Caucus say Chief Justice Deborah Agosti and five other justices were wrong to set aside a constitutional provision that state tax increases pass by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

Leaders of the effort say they intend to announce this morning in Las Vegas when they'll start collecting the thousands of signatures they'd need to put a recall measure before voters.

[Area51]

We preserve our freedoms by using four boxes: soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge.


-- Anonymous --


BUMP!

[George W. Bush]

Keep us posted!! The Nevada budget battle could get very interesting. I especially would love any news about conservatives who have grown a pair and are filing suit against them or leading any recall efforts.

They shouldn't be allowed to get away with destroying the standing procedure. If 2/3 supermajority is their legislative practice and tradition and law, then the court should leave it alone.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Which law allows the Federal Courts to do this? [Amendment X dutifully regurgitated]

two can play the quoting game. Article 4, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

A "republican form of government" implies among other things a written constitution which is not being violated. When it is being violated, "the United States" (that's the fedgov) has an obligation to step in, to fulfill their guarantee to the citizens of Nevada that they will enjoy a republican form of government. Simple.

[Area51]

Don't let the bastards off the hook, they made the decision, Remove them for it.

I can guarentee you one thing, with this ruling on the books a politician will find a way to enforce it.

[RobbyS]

The first state constitutions--those ratified at the time of the Revolution, gave neither governor nor judiciary much power, because each is an elite institution. In republican government we have legislative supremacy and judges subject to approval by the people or by their representatives. The basic problem is that the legal profession controls all branches of government.

[smith288]

We preserve our freedoms by using four boxes: soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge.

Awesome quote!

[snopercod]

I agree with you. This is entirely a state matter.

Unfortunately, someone (didn't catch who it was) has gone to Federal Court and obtained an injunction against the Nevada Supreme Court. I heard this on Rush with Roger Hedgecock about an hour ago.

[Drango]

We preserve our freedoms by using four boxes: soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge.

Exactly...there are a lot of Freepers here placing a lot of faith in another court and another set of black robes. I wish 'em well, but if it doesn't work, how many will invoke this:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

As they are talking about the courts overruling the Constitution here in California, this may not be an academic question for myself.(gulp)

[Timesink]

But if they're recalled, won't their replacements be chosen by the SAME GOVERNOR who asked them to raise taxes in the first place? SHOULDN'T THE GOVERNOR BE RECALLED TOO?

Yes, but thinking purely in terms of the Nevada Supreme Court, it doesn't matter. The replacement justices, even if appointed by the same scumbag governor, will be on notice: Violate the Constitution and you'll be out of a job too, your reputation in tatters.

[randog]

Unfortunately, someone (didn't catch who it was) has gone to Federal Court and obtained an injunction against the Nevada Supreme Court. I heard this on Rush with Roger Hedgecock about an hour ago.

That was my Assemblywoman Sharon Angle. She's a family friend and a true conservative (and a wonderful woman). A friend of mine that knows Sharon told me about the lawsuit last Saturday and said that she was looking for names to attach to the suit (it was a class action lawsuit). My family tried to reach her Sunday so we could be named on the suit, but she was out and the suit came out on Monday.

Sharon has been hitting the local talk radio circuit, too. She's really stepped up to the plate on this whole debacle (as well as Lynn Hetrick and a few others) and we're very proud of her. True leadership is hard to find in government these days, and it's crisis' like these that separate the men and women from the children. I have no doubt that Sharon's political star will shine brightly after we're through this.

[Timesink]

Unfortunately, someone (didn't catch who it was) has gone to Federal Court and obtained an injunction against the Nevada Supreme Court. I heard this on Rush with Roger Hedgecock about an hour ago.

There was another thread about this a few days ago (I'm about to head out the door and can't dig it up myself, but a keyword or headline search should pull it up) in which a lawyer tracked down the relevant court filings in this case, which showed the federal courts very much do have the responsibility of stepping in when the state courts start engaging in massive violations of the most basic rights of the state's citizens ... and have plenty of times throughout American history.

[Sabertooth]

Actually, they weren't recalled. They were simply not retained.< /nitpick >

Yep, you're fight. I stand corrected.

Supporters of the death penalty campaigned to remove three justices—Bird, Joseph Grodin (a former professor of labor law), and Cruz Reynoso (the first Latino on the court). All three had been appointed by Brown. Grodin and Reynoso had only voted to uphold death sentences in three cases.

No justice in California had ever lost a retention election, but this campaign caught fire. A crime victims organization enlisted people across the state to ring doorbells. The California District Attorneys Association opposed the justices. Anti-Bird literature flooded voters’ mailboxes. The campaign gained the support of many in the business community who did not like the justices because of what they considered a pro-consumer bias. Republican Governor George Deukmejian, running for re-election, constantly attacked Bird and the two other justices as “liberals” lacking “impartiality and objectivity.” His Democratic opponent, Tom Bradley, refused to take sides. Bird aired a series of commercials, but refrained from getting involved in a discussion about the death penalty. Her commercials focused on the importance of an independent judiciary. She stated: “Judges with a backbone are a California tradition worth keeping.” Although the three justices had support within the legal community, anti-Bird forces vastly outspent their supporters. All three justices lost, and the newly re-elected Governor Deukmejian appointed three justices in their place.
LINK

Still, a great time was had by all.

[pogo101]

Ah, those were heady days. "EIGHTY-SIX THE BIRD!" "GIVE ROSE THE BIRD!" (Such wit we had.)

[George W. Bush]

Sounds like Sharon Angle should run for governor to me.

[randog]

Sounds like Sharon Angle should run for governor to me.

She couldn't do any worse than the RINO we have now.

[snopercod]

The Nevada Constitution gives the legislature the authority to reduce the number of supreme court justices to two. They should do that immediately.

Then, come election time, the voters should boot the remaining two out of office.

[snopercod]

This one, perhaps?

Federal jurisdiction questioned (in case of tax-increase ordered by Nevada Supreme Court)

Those of us who believe in the concept of federalism are in a small minority here on FR, it seems.

[randog]

I like it. ;^)

[aristeides]

I just took a look at the Nevada court decision. I take it nobody asked them to issue the injunction they issued. The governor was asking them to issue an injunction ordering the legislature to pass the legislation required within a time limit. Nobody asked the court to remove the constitutional two-thirds requirement.

The court ruled that the "substantive" right to education trumped the "procedural" two-thirds requirement of the Constitution. Under that sort of reasoning, the whole U.S. Constitution could be gutted by the claim that its "procedural" requirements gutted some "substantive" right or other.

[AntiGuv]

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with the Nevada case to know whether I support a recall or not. However objectionable the ruling may've been, if it's based on the letter & intent of the law, then I have no problem with it. It's the responsibility of the legislature to modify bad laws & of the courts to rule on their basis if the legislature fails to do so. I have read Article 11 of the Nevada Constitution (regarding education) so the ruling may've been proper. I'm not sure though.