New York v. Torres
By AndrewHyman Posted in SCOTUS — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I previously mentioned this strange case, in which plaintiffs challenged New York's method of selecting judges as a violation of the First Amendment. Yesterday, SCOTUS unanimously rejected the challenge, and rightly so. But four of the justices (Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Stevens) took this opportunity to express their concern about the notion of judicial elections, on policy grounds, seeing as how judicial elections can turn judges into run-of-the-mill politicians. Ed Whelan finds that concern ironic, coming from four justices who have behaved in the past as legislators.
Justices Kennedy and Breyer additionally implied that they could strike down the New York election procedures if the case had been pleaded differently: "The rule of law, which is a foundation of freedom, presupposes a functioning judiciary respected for its independence....[but] the present suit does not permit us to invoke the Constitution in order to intervene." In other words, "come back with a Due Process argument instead of a First Amendment argument, and then we can legislate from the bench." So restrained of them.
Wacker77
by AndrewHyman
I don't want to be associated with the liberal justices either, but as Justice Thurgood Marshall once said, "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws."
And if judges are going to insist on being politicians regardless of whether they're elected or appointed, maybe it would be best for them to be elected for limited terms, instead of appointed for life.
The discussion of this case
by BillM
The discussion of this case on kos is pretty amusing. Doing their best to hid that it was a unaninmous decision favoring Democrats, among other things initially, but to their credit, many have (very reluctantly) conceded that Nino got this one right.
Great quote from Marshall; shame he and Stevens didn't apply it more often.
PS How do I italicize my signature?
Newsflash! Leahy endorses Obama!
by BoBo
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080117/D8U7SMLO1.html
"Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, endorsed presidential candidate Barack Obama on Thursday.
'We need a president who can reintroduce America to the world and actually reintroduce America to ourselves," Leahy, D-Vt., said in a conference call with reporters. "I believe Barack Obama is the best person to do that.'"
Does anyone here think Obama would nominate a different type of judge than Hillary? Who is more likely to nominate a more conservative type of Democrat? I actually think Hillary would, but that said I still think her nominees would be to the left of husband Bill's choices. I think the major difference between Hillary and Barack would be that he would nominate more racial minorities.
Leahy
by Matthew Friendly
How about reintroducing Leahy to a brain? Or reintroducing him to moral conviction? Or any moral substance at all?
Courtesy of How Appealing,
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5464832.html
"Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina and his wife have been charged in an arson fire that destroyed their home in the Houston suburb of Spring last summer, their attorney said."
Matthew, I demand a correction!
by Dienekes
re-? totally inapproprite use of the prefix, as if Leahy had EVER been introduced to a brain or moral conviction!
BillM, do the [i][/i] tags not work (but with angle instead of square brackets)? I don't know, as I've not tried to add a sig, but I would assume that's how you do it.
Quite right, Dienekes
by Matthew Friendly
You're quite right, Dienekes. I thought of that as I was writing it....
BoBo #4
by bk
Who is more likely to nominate a more conservative type of Democrat?
Wait, I thought the way it works is that the home state Senators draw up a list of 5 choices and the President has to pick one of them or the nominee is DOA. Maybe you were talking about the Supreme Court.
bk
by BoBo
Didn't you realize that the rules change when the Dems are in power? You have to satisfy their demands, ya know!
I don't want to be associated with the liberals justices, but I too agree that the election of judges is a bit unsettling. We do it here in Kentucky, even for the Supreme Court, and I just don't like it. It forces judicial candidates to run on some sort of platform and make political promises. I think governors of states should appoint judges just as the president does.