Required By Law?
I am no third party advocate, to be sure, but there is one law, or rather, a provision in our state Constitution that I cannot stand. Even though Governor Markell is a Democrat, and even though we have a supermajority of Democrats in the State Senate, we have to nominate a Republican by law to the current vacany on the Court of Chancery, as the Governor did yesterday.
That provision’s proponents will say it ensures political balance on the court. Wait, I thought our courts are supposed to be apolitical, guided only by a disspassionate reading of the law? Isn’t that what the Republicans said in opposition to Sotomayor? Yes, I think it was. But now there has to be political balance on the court, and that is a good thing.
I view appointments to the Court, whether it be the Supreme Court or the Court of Chancery, a consequence of winning the Presidency or the Governorship. If a Democrat wins, then guess what, a justice or judge that conservatives will disagree with is going to be appointed. If a Republican wins, then guess what, I am not going to like the nominee. I hated Roberts and Alito, but was against any filibuster of them simply because Bush won the election in 2004.
This constitutional provision is nothing more than a two party protection racket. No matter how small and unrepresentative of the mainstream the GOP gets, it is guaranteed seats on the bench under our Constitution. That stinks to high heaven and should be repealed.
I actually like this law. I think its refreshing that Delaware sort of tacitly admits that judges are not apolitical robots but human beings with actual leanings. I think that the law makes sense because a bench too far one way or another is not a good thing. Sure, the Warren era of the US Supreme Court was good for liberals, but we’ve been paying for it ever since with the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts.
I like the ‘balance’ required. Even though justice is, in theory, “blind”, a few thousand years of written history indicates that we should hedge our ideals with a bit of common sense.
The idea that conservative justices don’t interpret law or are somehow free from bias is one of the biggest bs arguments out there. Then again, it fits right in with republican delusions of grandeur; that they are somehow never wrong, their policies always work, etc. Too bad in practive they are nothing but utter failures.
I am TOTALLY hijacking this thread, because as a loyal commenter/reader, I’d like to know WTF is going on….
DDem, did you UN-quit and WTF happened to Jason? Is DV still gone or will he be back? IS this a vast right-wing conspiracy? What?!?!
Hey! My comment went into spam?!?!
If anything, Delaware has succeeded in keeping the judiciary as close to apolitical as possible. Screening committees, no real packing of the benches. Contrast that with all the corruption where judgeships are political offices, and candidates raise all sorts of special interest $$’s to don robes while pretending that justice is impartial.
On this issue, The Beast Who Litigates will take Delaware over most other states any day.
As far as Smitty being spammed, ‘bulo suspects that the Spaminator is having a hard time keeping up w/his numerous noms de plume.
I have to agree with The Beast here, I’ve never really understood electing judges. I know this is a republic and all, but I think that takes it a bit too far and makes the judges too beholden to fundraisers and contributors. Also, I don’t know how a public could rate a judge’s performance and decide to vote for him again or not.
RSmitty… answers to all your questions will be revealed this evening in a blockbuster primetime event. Your comment will remain in spam until then, because it ruins the shocking surprise.
Oh, and JimD, and I vehemently against electing Judges. My point is that the elected Governors and Presidents should appoint them, without restriction to party. I love all the screening committees and safeguards, but why does Jack Markell have to appoint a Republican? Why can’t he appoint who he wants?
Del Dem, the balancing of judicial appointments based on party registry harkens back to a very dim time in DE history when abuse of the judicial appointment process required legislation. That’s what they came up with back then, and its worked well enough to make the Delaware judiciary recognized as one of the best in the world. I’m not saying this rule is solely responsible for giving us a good court system, but it certainly helped.
Del Dem,
I agree – this locks out independents and third-party candidates for the bench.
Censoring RSmitty is wrong. I am confident that he violated no rules in his post. This is nonsense.
Attica! Attica! Attica!
A1 – I get the spam-for-now status. They apparently have a Hallmark-after-school-special post coming up and there may be something in what I said that would spoil the fun. I honestly have zero clue in the correlation between them, relative to spoiling the fun, but I am fine with it for now. I didn’t say anything damning at all, either. I had asked for clarification on the state-of-DL, but I asked in a way that I am known to ask: in long, drawn out, over-illustrative words. 😉 I kid about that, but I did ask. So, thanks for the stand both for me and rights in general, but I give it a pass…until approximately 5:01:36.9932, but I’m not really watching that intently.
A1 – it appears your complaint has been heard. The comment is now there (9:28AM). You can see it’s fairly benign, but still asking for clarification on the status of DL.
Of course, it might have been better had I linked to Newton’s POST, rather than the comment thread. Sheesh! Maybe it was spammed-out due to linking stupidity on my part. 🙄
I am glad it was posted, RSmitty. It would be great if the marketing heads at DL (yeah, I jest) would put out an open thread for rampant gossip, conjecture and speculation – not to mention comparison of the size of anatomical parts. (I threw the last part in there for Steve Newton’s benefit.)
Now why would I want to make Steve feel bad?
I’m sorry but my brain is bigger than everyone’s (except Cassandra).
UI, your brain is based on information never seen by the human eye, and is mentioned no where in the Bible, therefore all that knowledge is useless, if not heretical.
Thanks Dave. I knew there was a reason that I am not to be trusted.
Pales in comparison to the hacks in Boston who changed the law in 2004 for John Kerry’s potential successor to be named in a special election not appointment by the Governor who was a Republican. Now Ted Kennedy wants to change it back to Governor appointment?
The Mafia has more ethics than liberal dems.
Mike Protack
I like our system down here in Texas — a judge who resigns is replaced by the Governor, and is voted on by the people at the next election. And every judge faces the people every two years.
JP court isn’t much different. Recently they solicited resumes for Magistrates but one source told me the only actual vacancy was for a “Republican candidate in Kent County” – which sucks if you apply and pay the $80 for the test (yes, you have to pay for the test yourself). Additionally you have to be a registered voter but you can’t be politically active or contribute to any political entity financially – I understand that and agree with that but then why is the party affiliation an issue?
However, the part that sucks the most is that they ask everybody to apply and pay for the test – so Democrats that applied for Magistrate appointments in Kent County paid for nothing? Not even a chance? I’d love to know more about how that works.
JP Court positions are filled entirely differently from “State Court” judgeships. There is no political balance requirement. And the call for applications that you saw will result in a list of names the Governor can appoint from for the next 4+ years, no matter when a vacancy exists or in what county. I know this because I asked the Division of Professional Regulation, which helps staff the Magistrate’s Screening Committee, and I didn’t just send a comment out into the blogosphere making inferences that may not be true….