Archive for the 'Judicial Independence' Category
Over the July 4th holiday weekend, opinions in two Kansas newspapers sounded calls to protect fair and impartial courts from efforts to inject politics into the selection of judges.
The opinions responded to a wave of criticism of courts from Kansas elected officials, including statements by Gov. Sam Brownback last month (see Gavel Grab) and his calls for changing the ways that judges are chosen.
A Lawrence Journal-World editorial underscored the importance of insulating courts from popular opinion and political majorities:
“What the critics don’t seem to understand is that courts should not — and should never — be in the business of responding to public opinion. The executive and legislative branches at both the state and national level are directly responsible to the public, but the judiciary is intended to be responsible only to the law of the land. It’s not a matter of majority rule.”
Ruth Marcus wrote in The Washington Post regarding the court’s health care ruling that it “helps — or should help — undermine the cynical view that all judges are mere partisans in robes, reflexively ruling for their team.”
In the New York Times, Jeffrey Rosen wrote about Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., “It’s understandable that liberals and conservatives are disappointed with the chief justice for rejecting positions they deeply favor. But Chief Justice Roberts’s relatively consistent embrace of judicial deference to democratic decisions supports his statement during his confirmation hearings that judges should be like umpires calling ‘balls and strikes.’” Read more
Justice at Stake, remarking on the numerous attacks on courts that preceded the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling on Friday, called the 5-4 decision “a vivid illustration of the central role of courts in our society and democracy” and a reminder of the importance of protecting impartial courts.
“Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, upholding marriage rights for same-sex couples, is a vivid illustration of the central role of courts in our society and democracy – and a reminder of how vigilantly their independence and impartiality must be protected. As the issue of marriage rights has progressed through the courts, we have seen numerous calls for impeachment of judges and punitive measures designed to strip courts of their authority. Today’s decision will come under fire as well, especially since we are entering a heated political season. But we must always bear in mind that courts are not beholden to politicians or public sentiment, only to the law and the constitution.”
Controversy over strings attached to the Kansas judicial budget is attracting coverage across the state and nation. Under new legislation, the entire state court operating budget for 2016 and 2017 would be cut if the state Supreme Court rules recent administrative changes unconstitutional.
The Wall Street Journal says that legal experts believe “the legislation may be the first to peg the Third Branch’s budget to the outcome of an individual case, and public-interest groups described it as the most pointed challenge to judicial independence in recent memory.” An editorial in the Lawrence Journal-World describes the legislation as “blackmail” and a “power grab,” whereby “lawmakers are trying to alter the roles, responsibilities and fundamental balance of power among the state’s three branches of government.”
“If legislators and the governor think the Kansas Constitution is wrong,” the editorial reads, “they should tackle that issue head-on and seek to change it — not use budget blackmail to try to force the state’s independent judiciary to change its mind.” An op-ed in the Kansas City Star agrees, arguing that the bill is about control, not about decentralizing power as proponents assert.
Watch Gavel Grab as this story develops.
The Wichita Eagle posted an editorial criticizing the Kansas legislature for punitively stripping the Supreme Court of budgetary powers.
The state’s high court has the constitutional power over “general administrative authority over all courts in this state,” but the 2014 judicial budget countered this provision. Moreover, the law included “a non-severability clause [which] guaranteed that if a court struck down the policy changes as unconstitutional, the judicial funding would fall, too.” Partnered with the court’s recent blocking of some major legislation, the editorial contends that the move sent a “clear message”
The 2015 judicial budget, which was recently approved by the Senate Ways and Means Committee, contains a similar clause, but specifies the funding will be revoked for two fiscal years if the measure is ruled unconstitutional.
A 2014 change in Kansas Supreme Court authority is being challenged in the courts as more significant changes advance in the state House.
The Associated Press reports that two bills to change how Kansas Supreme Court justices are selected sailed through the House Judiciary Committee on Monday. The proposals would make the process more political, either implementing a Federal System of direct gubernatorial appointment subject to state Senate approval, or partisan elections.
“People don’t often realize the significance of judicial independence,” Justice O’Connor said, according to the Palm Beach Daily News. “We do have laws and principles developed over the years to protect judicial independence in decision-making. … I have traveled the world, and not many countries have had the concepts that have served us so well.”
Justice O’Connor is First Honorary Chair of Justice at Stake. Read more
“Kansans should be concerned” that a new court funding law threatens the independence of the state judiciary and violates the separation of powers of the three government branches, retired Kansas Justice Fred N. Six writes in a Wichita Eagle op-ed. He advocates for its repeal.
The new law provides increased court funding while making those funds contingent upon overhauling administration of the judicial system. It allows local courts to opt out of state Supreme Court control over budget preparation and submission and takes away the Supreme Court’s authority to pick chief district court judges (see Gavel Grab).
“As citizens,” Justice Six writes, “we are entitled to a fair day in court, whether to ensure that our rights are protected or our legal disputes are decided impartially. We should be extremely skeptical of efforts by the legislative or executive branches to manipulate the powers assigned to the Kansas Supreme Court by our constitution and make the courts subservient to the political branches.” He concludes: Read moreNo comments
By voting no on a proposed constitutional amendment about judicial appointments, an Orlando Sentinel editorial declares, “Floridians can repudiate this latest politically motivated attempt to manipulate the state’s courts.”
The proposed amendment would allow an outgoing governor to make prospective judicial appointments to fill certain vacancies that take effect on inauguration day. The editorial slams it as reflecting “crude power politics” and representing another in a series of “misguided attempts to assert more control over the courts” by legislators in Tallahassee.
While supporters of the proposed amendment say it is needed to avert a potential constitutional crisis due to confusion about existing law, the editorial asserts that a Florida Supreme Court advisory opinion in 2006 clarifies that an incoming governor has the relevant appointment power. The editorial says an amendment is not needed. Read moreNo comments
A new online ad was rolled out by supporters of a proposed constitutional amendment to change the way appellate judges are selected in Tennessee. It is narrated by former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson, a Republican.
The ad says the constitutional amendment would “prevent outsiders from buying our courts” and “protect our vote” on whether appellate judges get another term. It spotlights support for the proposal from Gov. Bill Haslam, a Republican, and former Gov. Phil Bredesen, a Democrat. It comes as debate over the proposal is heating up.
The Nashville Post reported that state Sen. Mark Norris, the Republican majority leader, said attacks on three Tennessee Supreme Court justices in advance of last month’s retention election could hurt prospects for the amendment when voters go to the polls. In The Tennessean, an op-ed by George Scoville asked, “Would the Founding Fathers Support Amendment 2?” Read moreNo comments