Archive for judges

29 Wisconsin judges signed Gov. Scott Walker recall petitions

walker recall petition judge signatures

Via thenorthwestern.com

Scotty Walker is hearing from judges from all over Wisconsin who support his recall by way of signing petitions calling for his exit. However, no appeals court or Supreme Court justices signed a petition.

There’s a particular judge in Dane County, David Flanagan, who is getting slammed because he was the one who issued a temporary restraining order against a voter ID law that Scotty supported, and then didn’t reveal that he was pro-recall.

Judges from fifteen other counties signed petitions, too, which added up to twenty-nine circuit court judges in all, per Gannett Wisconsin Media.

Via TheNorthwestern.com:

Twelve percent of the state’s approximately 250 county-level judges signed the petition. By comparison, the 930,000 signatures submitted by recall organizers would represent 21 percent of the state’s voting-age population, if all signatures were valid. The Government Accountability Board has so far determined 26,000 were invalid, and the review is ongoing. [...]

Janine Geske, a former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice and law professor at Marquette University, said she was surprised by the number of judges who signed the recall petitions.

“I believe the judges had the right to sign the petition, but it creates a problem with the appearance of impartiality if and when they may be called upon to decide any issues involving the governor or the Republican party,” Geske said in an e-mail. “We are in a highly politically charged time when many citizens have lost confidence in our governmental bodies. It is critical that judges do everything they can to demonstrate that the judiciary remains independent of the other two branches and will remain free of political influence.”

The state’s Code of Judicial Conduct makes no specific reference to recall petitions. Those judges who signed argued that the petition was “merely supporting the electorate’s right to vote, and that the recall petition supports neither a specific candidate nor a political party and is allowable.” In other words, they weren’t endorsing a candidate or a party, but the recall process itself.

Also, per the article, if signing on isn’t specifically prohibited, then it becomes a First Amendment issue.

There’s been a “barrage” of complaints (one group filing is the Republican Party of Wisconsin) seeking an investigation of Flanagan, but any decision will have to wait until the end of April, when the judicial commission is scheduled to meet.

Three-judge panel deals Republicans a major blow in Texas redistricting legal battle, map boosts Democrats

The news is full of Texas good news stories today. This one is just too sweet. It isn’t a done deal yet, but two Moments of Happy from that state in one day is fine by me. Via  Roll Call:

A federal three-judge panel dealt Republicans a major blow today in the Texas redistricting legal battle.
 
The judges drew a preliminary Congressional map that appears to protect incumbents and gives Democrats an edge in picking up three of the four new seats Texas gained in reapportionment. The plan increases the electoral potency of minorities in certain districts, giving an added boost to Democrats who tend to do very well among Latino and African-American voters. [...]

The new map is only a proposal. The court is seeking comments and objections until noon on Friday. It is believed that the court on Friday will issue a final map, which will be implemented for next year’s primaries. … The decennial redistricting process, controlled by GOP-held legislatures in a number of key states, was expected to be a boon for national Republicans this cycle.

Let’s hope this doesn’t light a fire under conservatives to turn out in higher numbers, but I’ll take decent news when I can get it.

Of course, there are always the usual concerns about voting machine tampering and voter suppression efforts to contend with…

…but for now, let’s live in the moment.

Florida’s GOP House Speaker Pushing Court-Packing Plan To Neutralize Democratic Justices

Judges matter, as we see over and over in cases like, say, Bush v. Gore. Florida House Speaker Dean Cannon, a Republican, understands this all too well and is now pushing hard to pack the Florida courts with judges that see things his way so that the Democratic members will be virtually irrelevant.

What part of “fair and impartial” don’t these “patriots” understand?

Via Think Progress:

The measure would add three new justices to the court, all of whom would be named by Republican Gov. Rick Scott. Then it would go one step past Roosevelt by dividing the court in two. The three most senior justices — all, coincidentally, appointed by a Democratic governor — would be consigned to a new criminal division.

This would ensure a conservative-leaning majority on a new civil division, where pivotal cases involving the drawing of new voting districts will land next year. Republicans cite all sorts of reasons for expansion, such as needing to cut the court’s heavy caseload. They ignore the fact that the court’s caseload is now the lowest in a decade.

The Florida GOP’s effort to effectively turn its states’ judiciary into a sock puppet for Rick Scott is just one part of a nationwide campaign by the far right to ensure the only way to win a case in court is to be powerful and privileged.

As Think Progress notes, Wisconsin’s newly “elected” judge, David Prosser, had the Koch brothers behind him, and anti-gay groups poured thousands of dollars into their campaigns to depose judges who disagreed with their outdated, bigoted points of view. The same goes for the tea party’s attempts to depose judges who didn’t suit them, and Republicans who continue to block President Obama’s judicial nominees.

This is not democracy, so all those GOP Congress members and governors who wrap themselves in the Constitution should either STFU or change their ways. Meantime, it’s up to us to make sure to vote these people out of office… or of course, recall them.

GOP Judges: Dear GOP Senators, Stop Obstructing President Obama’s Judges

What was that about your so-called reverence of the rule of law again, GOP? It occurs to many of us that it’s a little tough to enforce laws when there aren’t enough judges to go around. Hence, court cases are delayed, and where does that leave justice again? Nowhere, that’s where.

So far, during all of President Obama’s nearly two years in office, only 41 judges have been confirmed.

It’s gotten to the point where even Republican judges are rather perturbed at the Party of No’s obstructionism:

[S]even Republican-appointed federal judges co-signed a letter warning of the consequences of the GOP’s systematic obstruction of President Obama’s judges. [...]

…Courts cannot do their work if authorized judicial positions remain vacant.

While we could certainly use more judges, and hope that Congress will soon approve the additional judgeships requested by the Judicial Conference, we would be greatly assisted if our judicial vacancies–some of which have been open for several years and declared “judicial emergencies”–were to be filled promptly. We respectfully request that the Senate act on judicial nominees without delay.

Short version: Stop all that stoppage. This is serious. Grow up and do your job.

Think Progress has more.

In Iowa, Voters Vote out 3 Judges Over Same-Sex Marriage Issue

We still have such a long way to go:

DES MOINES — In a rebuke of the state supreme court with implications for judicial elections across the country, voters here removed three justices who participated in a ruling last year that made the state the first in the Midwest to permit same-sex marriage.

As for that conservative reverance for freedom, liberty, justice, and enforcing existing laws:

After years of grumbling about “robed masters,” conservatives demonstrated their ability to target and remove judges who issue opinions they disagree with.

No hypocrisy there, nope. By the by, this was the first time that Iowa supreme court judges were dumped by voters.

I wonder how such a thing could have happened? I mean, it’s a strange coincidence that everyone suddenly came together at this time, this year, this election, and with such success:

Financed largely by out-of-state organizations opposed to gay marriage, those pushing against the judges were successful in turning the vote into a referendum on the divisive issue.

I see. “Activist judges” who make legal decisions based on legal arguments get legally booted because some mega-corporate fat cats have the money to legally buy an election.

Let’s hope this doesn’t become a trend.

Wait, something’s coming in through my imaginary earpiece:

[S]imilar ouster campaigns were begun in other states against state supreme court justices running unopposed in retention elections — judges whose rulings on matters involving abortion, taxes, tort reform and health care had upset conservatives.

Aw, the wittle conservatives were upset?  Because things didn’t go their way? And Congress passed bills that they didn’t like?  So to remedy that, they turn to MoneyBags, Inc.

The Supreme Court put George W. Bush into the White House and magically turned corporations into people. You’ve now seen the results. Candidates run against money, not other candidates, and the powerful can use their wealth to remove judges who disagree with them.

We need to unify, get busy, stop whining, and get to work. This is unacceptable.

Your Vote Makes a Difference Dep’t: Corporate campaign fundraising picks up speed

The next time you vote, think about the influence, if elected, your candidate would have over our judicial system, who ends up with a gavel. Then think about how rulings by judges nominated and eventually confirmed by your candidates affect elections. Then think about how those elections affect our judicial system. Dizzy yet?

Then think about how difficult it will be to get your candidate elected because of the judges who have been confirmed by elected officials who got a Rove-load of money that supported Citizens United (and Federal Election Commission vs. Wisconsin Right to Life).

Get the picture?

Driven by increasing anger at Democratic policies and by recent Supreme Court decisions unshackling corporate contributions, business and conservative groups are preparing a flood of campaign money to try to wrest control of Congress from the Democrats.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the biggest collection point for corporate contributions, has increased its spending for the congressional election in November from $35 million in 2008 to a projected $75 million this year. Officials say it may go even higher.

The chamber has been joined by new conservative fundraising organizations — such as American Crossroads, affiliated with Republican strategist Karl Rove — that have committed to raising tens of millions of dollars.

One report circulating among Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill last week estimated that more than $300 million has been budgeted for the campaign by a group of 15 conservative tax-exempt organizations. [...]

The conservative fundraising commitment has stunned Democrats.

Judges matter. Candidates matter. Corporations matter. Money matters. Voters, apparently, don’t.