Call of the West: Rein In the Judges

[seafan]

Call of the West: Rein In the Judges

Conservative ballot measures in many states would check judicial power. South Dakotans seek a right to sue jurists, Montanans to recall.

By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer
October 15, 2006

DENVER — Judges across several Western states could soon face new limits on their authority and threats to their independence, as conservatives campaign for ballot measures that aim to rein in what they describe as "runaway courts."
Frustration among the right has been building for years, especially since the high court in Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2003. Politicians and pastors have accused judges of ignoring the public will and legislating from the bench.

On Nov. 7, voters will be asked to do something about it.

South Dakota's ballot contains the most radical provision: It would empower citizens to sue judges over their rulings.

snip

Supporters cast their efforts as populist and democratic, a way to make judges answer more directly to the citizens they serve. "This is a very measured and mild response to the perception that our courts are out of control," said John Andrews, a former legislator promoting the amendment to impose term limits in Colorado.
Opponents, however, warn that the initiatives would begin to dismantle the system of checks and balances set up under the U.S. Constitution.
"Judges are there to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. They are not there to do the popular will," said Doreen Dodson, a St. Louis attorney who chairs the American Bar Assn.'s committee on judicial independence. "They are accountable to the law and the Constitution."

snip

South Dakota's Amendment E would have the most sweeping effect; it has drawn opposition from conservatives and liberals — including, in a rare show of unanimity, every member of the state Legislature.
Under the amendment judges in the state could lose their jobs or assets if citizens disliked how they sentenced a criminal, resolved a business dispute or settled a divorce. "We want to give power back to the people," said Jake Hanes, a spokesman for the measure.
--snip
This deep suspicion of judges is reflected not only on the fall ballot, but also in the rallying cries of the right, especially Christian conservatives. A summit for "values voters" last spring included a session called "The Judiciary: Overruling God." Mock ballots, circulated online, urge Christians to vote for the judge they'd most like to impeach.


snip

Andrews' campaign has spent more than $300,000 reminding voters in Colorado of rulings that he considers outrageous, such as when judges struck down a school voucher program, canceled a ballot initiative to limit services for illegal immigrants, and voided the death penalty for a convicted murderer because jurors used the Bible to guide their deliberations.
--snip
Andrews, a Republican, acknowledges that term limits won't guarantee rulings he approves. But he says it's better then letting justices sit on the bench for decades, "curdling like old milk."
--snip

"Conservatives in particular have been so upset about judicial rulings, and this is an activist way to deal with activist judges."

[ck4829]

1. But, there is nothing on the ballots that will put limits on Bush's power

Except, to vote for a Democrat.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Can't a judge be sufficiently discredited by having his/her decision

overruled by a higher court? And the potential always exist for impeachment for judicial misconduct (Model Rules of Judicial Ethics, etc.)

Since being a judge means using "judgment", how can you sue a judge for a judgment call like you would your attorney for legal malpractice? I can see it now: new liability insurance made available to judges.

[Toots]

3. What if your suit ended up in front of the judge you were suing?

I think this is pretty much a blantantly unconstitutional idea. Don't these Republicans realize we live in a Republic and not a direct Democracy. We do not live by mob rule...

[Eugene]

5. You're right, but proponents won't let the facts stop them.

South Dakota judges are also popularly elected and answerable to the voters.
Moreover the backers of the South Dakota J.A.I.L. initiative cannot name
an instance of judicial misconduct in that state that their measure is meant
to punish.

J.A.I.L. is a reactionary proposal from ultra-libertarian zealots who want
to open judges to retaliation for unpopular decisions.

[acmavm]

4. Like you couldn't see this coming. The republican party has a LOT

to be terrified of if the judicial branch maintains independence.

Half the party will be behind bars.

[Demeter]

8. The TOP Half

The rest will have switched parties!

[kestrel91316]

16. You figured it out.

[DeepModem Mom]

6. Recommended.

[lonestarnot]

7. They will never saddle that horse! NEVER!

[DavidDvorkin]

9. They aren't open and honest about it

What a surprise!

Here in Colorado, the mailings and TV ads are vague and designed to push buttons, especially the general anti-authority one.

Of course that approach is common in mailings and TV ads, and John Andrews has always been a dishonest and vile politician, but at least, if this measure passes, we can say that a lot of the voters didn't understand fully what they were voting for.

Unfortunately, that's often the case in general. Still, if there were an extended and in-depth debate, I'd like to think the voters would turn against such measures.

[wholetruth00]

10. Soon we will be a nation without laws or total disregard for the laws

enacted. Conservatives have already attempted murder of judges whose ruling they disagree with as they have actually murdered doctors who performed abortions. It's beginning to look to me like the label conservative has a very nasty,mean and evil characteristic. I'll be smeared with the label of "liberal" any day as opposed to the label "conservative." And on these grounds, liberals should proudly display their label and fight back against tyrannical, elitest, selfish, immoral, and sexually perverted, though hypocritical conservatives.

[Odin2005]

11. The Theocons want a Tyranny by Majority, not a democracy.

Thier contempt for the Rule of Law is pathetic.

[Vidar]

14. Well said.

[iamjoy]

12. The Problem Is

That people don't know the full story behind a judicial (or jury) ruling. They make decisions based on emotions and what they read in the paper, or on extremist web sites.

So people don't understand how a jury could find Michael Jackson "innocent" of child molestation charges, not realizing the the jury was only saying there was reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

People don't understand how a woman who spilled hot coffee on herself could get millions from McDonalds, most of them don't know that McDonalds had received several complaints that their coffee was too hot and continued to deliberately brew it that way.

OF course, I would like to see that Judge from Seminole County (Fl)traffic court arrested and subject to a strip search, but not necessarily removed from the bench. This guy had people charged with contempt of court (and sent to jail) for showing up late when the people had been given the wrong court room.

And activist judges is bull crap - it's a pejorative, inflammatory term. An activist judicial decision is any ruling you don't like. I believe most judges (Liberal or Conservative) make their ruling based on sound (although divergent) interpretations of the Constitution.

A law that allowed judges to be sued could actually cause what it wishes to prevent, because judges would factor popular opinion and fear of being sued into their decision.

[leesa]

13. This nonsense again.

[Evergreen Emerald]

15. This is so dangerous

it is such a threat to our Constitution and our Republic. It has been in the making for years, and part of the coup that the neo-cons have perpetrated against our country. The judges are the last check and balance on the unlimited power that Bush and the Congress gave the executive branch.

It is frightening that there is even a suggestion that this is a good idea.

Scary times, these.