Court nominees draw fire, praise
Gov. Matt Blunt is getting more advice on what to do with the three nominees for the state Supreme Court.
In dueling press releases yesterday, opponents of the nonpartisan court plan urged Blunt to reject all three while the Missouri Bar defended the selection process and called all three “highly qualified.”
The nominees — all from the western side of the state — are: Atchison County Associate Circuit Judge Zel Fischer and Court of Appeals Judges Lisa White Hardwick and Ron Holliger of Kansas City.
The finalists were picked by the Appellate Judicial Commission. Blunt has until Oct. 20 to choose one of the three. If he doesn’t, the commission will make the choice for him.
The critics, a conservative group called Better Courts for Missouri, said its research showed that all three judges would be “‘dominated’ by one special interest group — trial lawyers.” The opponents want Blunt to draw attention to the plan’s shortcomings by making a stink and rejecting all three.
Charlie Harris, president of the Bar, shot back: “Fortunately, in Missouri, under the nonpartisan court plan, the Judicial Commissions are not tasked with trying to select candidates on the basis of whether they please one political faction or another.” He said the candidates were picked because of their “demonstrated knowledge, ability and character.”
On a related note, UMKC law professor David Achtenberg, authored a piece in today’s Kansas City Star defending Hardwick against charges that she is “left-leaning.”
Achtenberg, whose research was cited in my recent article on the mother ship, says his analysis of court opinions shows that Hardwick sides with Republican-appointed judges more often than Democratic-appointed ones.
Blunt’s staff is doing background checks and has given the nominees 50 questions to answer. The replies are due back Thursday. The finalists’ original applications can be viewed on the Supreme Court site.
“his analysis of court opinions shows that Hardwick sides with Republican-appointed judges more often than Democratic-appointed ones.”
Which clearly demonstrates that Republican-apointed judges make the correct legal call more often. Any other reason would show that Hardwick’s decisions are partisan (favoring Republican-appointed judges).
Zel Fischer is underqualified, and Ron Holliger doesn’t care to follow the Missouri Constitution. In 2005, Case number WD64472, Holliger chose to ignore an Amendment to the Missouri Constitution that limited the jurisdiction of circuit court judges. Holliger’s reasoning; since the Missouri Supreme Court didn’t say no in a previous case (they didn’t say yes either), it was seen as permission to ignore the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
Holliger should be removed from the bench, not promoted.
Bah, humbug!
These “Better Courts for Missouri” folks are a buncha fascist corporatist far right wing neocon Brown Shirt weblog echochambering yobbo yappers!
It’s all a part of the C of C’s attempts to control the courts so as to keep cases from juries, the only place where the average person can get justice from being being injured through the carelessness of others!
Timmy, Timmy, Timmy,
You’re a coward. A tool. A sniveling idiot representing the liberal dominated voice of the Missouri Bar.
What did you tell Lee Smallwood when you failed to file a timely notice?
Your avoidance of the issues presented is telling. You can’t justify the actions of the judges, so you attack the messenger.
While I can’t tell you the motivation of Better Courts for Missouri, the change they call for is necessary.
I know more about you, the Missouri Bar Association, and the so-called non-partisan plan than you would ever suspect.
hyper-vigilant –
Help me see what you’re seeing.
You said Judge Holliger “chose to ignore an Amendment to the Missouri Constitution that limited the jurisdiction of circuit court judges” in his opinion (two other judges agreeing) in Case WD64472, State of Missouri ex rel. A&G Commercial Trucking, Inc., Respondent, v. Director of the Manufactured Housing and Modular Units Program of the Public Service Commission, and the Missouri Public Service Commission, Appellants.
But, as I read that opinion (and I’m a journalist, not a lawyer), Judge Holliger wrote: “We cannot conclude that the Missouri Constitution grants circuit courts superintending jurisdiction over administrative tribunals when the constitution was amended to explicitly remove the grant of such jurisdiction. … Thus, to the extent that circuit courts have jurisdiction to enter writs of prohibition against administrative agencies, as contemplated in Mississippi Lime , that jurisdiction does not flow from the Missouri Constitution. … Pursuant to Section 386.510, RSMo, the circuit court acted without jurisdiction (and) the judgment of the circuit court is, therefore, reversed, and the matter remanded to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the proceeding.”
As I read this, Judge Holliger ruled as you say he should have ruled.
Please help us see how I’m not reading the opinion as you’re reading it.
reporterbob,
Sorry. I should have explained further.
WD63827 is the Mississippi Lime case that is cited in WD64472. Holliger cited Mississippi Lime, and Riverside (SC85292).
Without hesitation, Holliger cited a case that used the following logic:
1. The Missouri Supreme Court is automatically required(sua sponte) to review jurisdiction of the lower court whose case it is reviewing.
2. Even though a 1976 Amendment to the Missouri Constitution removed the circuit court’s authority to issue writs to administrative agencies (except where expressly provided by statute)
3. Since the Missouri Supreme Court would have surely identified the lack of jurisdiction, but did not, the circuit court therefore, must have jurisdiction, even though the Constitutional Amendment (Will of the People) removed such.
I hope you can see how this judicial logic cannot be accepted. Holliger was not the a member of the original panel that made the determination, but he just went along with it without saying anything.(which is just as bad)
and reporterbob,
Take a look at Judge Hutcherson. In 1992, after 3 bar associations gave him bad reviews, the voters chose not to retain him. Our Missouri Supreme Court made him a Senior Judge, and put him on the bench in Camden County. Since he was sent to fill-in, the voters could not remove him. Those that appeared in front of Hutcherson in Camden County did not know that he was removed from another county, nor were they notified of the bad reports from the 3 bar associations. -Retention Elections are a joke.
Retention ballots are not jokes unless they are rendered so by the uninformed public. If more people would make informed decisions then more judges would be removed from office. As it is, the voting public blindly votes to retain every judge every year. Quit blaming the process and start exercising your right to make an informed vote. One judge in St. Louis County recieved a 52% approval rating from the attorneys that appear before that judge. That is a very low rating. One would think that such a low rating would result in that judge not being retained at the ballot box. I will predict, however, that the voters will ignore the information and overwhelmingly retain that judge regardless of the low rating. Therefore, the voters deserve what they get and they can hardly complain about the process.
the funny thing is…YOU
You attempt to place the burden on the voters, but you completely ignore how the Missouri Supreme Court laughed at the decision of the voters by placing Judge Hutcherson on the bench in Camden County.
The judge that you are trying so hard to have removed is a good judge that won’t go along with the corrupt system. The Missouri Bar Association, a committee of the Missouri Supreme Court, controls the evaluations. If you’re a good judge, that won’t go along with the legalized theft, they will try to have you removed. -The first time is a warning.
The 52% approval rating that you cite is a blatant lie. The evaluations are based on 16 questions. If you have some place where 52% is denoted, it is not the same information that was provided to the voters.
Somebody has to win, and somebody has to lose. 50% are going to think the judge made the wrong call. (Either that, or the attorneys are taking someones money when they think they don’t have a winnable case.)
Retention elections are a joke. How do you control power? Vote every single one of them out of office. Do not retain a single judge. Now that sounds like “change” we can all get behind.
Dear Hyper-Crackpot: Reporter Bob already pointed out you can’t read Appellate opinions. You probably want appellate judges who can’t read too. Of course, if you get your wish regarding the judicial selection process, your justices wont have to be able to read. All they will have to do is ask a Republican Governor or big city power broker how to decide each case. Also, no appellate judges will be appointed from out-state Missouri because most big money politics is centered in the urban areas. I guess you are nostalgic for the Pendergast era. Brilliant!