Court nominees finish Round 1
Gov. Matt Blunt announced today that his top staffers have finished grilling the nominees for a Supreme Court vacancy.
Next, the governor himself will schedule interviews with the candidates: Court of Appeals Judges Lisa White Hardwick and Ron Holliger and Atchison County Associate Circuit Judge Zel Fischer.
In what has become the most public process ever for a court appointment, Blunt released the six questions the nominees were asked by his staff. The spellbinders ranged from “What is your approach to constitutional interpretation?” to “What is your view of the allocation of judicial resources in Missouri?” No word on how their answers stacked up.
The staffers from Blunt’s administration who participated in the session were: General Counsel Lowell Pearson, Deputy General Counsel Nick Frey, Director of Boards and Commissions Tom Reiss, Chief of Staff Trish Vincent, Health and Senior Services Director Jane Drummond and Revenue Director Omar Davis.
Fischer is widely considered to have an edge as the only Republican among the three finalists. But he also has the least judicial experience.
Some conservatives want Blunt to reject the slate to draw attention to their complaints about the selection system, which they say is dominated by trial lawyers. But such a victory might be considered Pyrrhic, because the screening panel would get to choose the high court judge.
Why would the Director of Boards and Commissions and the Director of Health and Senior Services be there? The Missouri Supremee Court is not a “board or commission”. At least the Director of Revenue is a lawyer, which would make sense, since the Governor is not. Why would a Governor NOT want to make the pick for the Supreme Court?
EPT 50,
While the article gave the individuals’ current positions, it didn’t expand on past roles. The Director of Boards and Commissions does background checks and interviews of ALL Gubernatorial appointments, including all of the judicial positions he appoints. The Director of Health and Senior Services, Jane Drummond, moved to that position after being the Governor’s General Counsel (so yes, she’s a lawyer too). Omar Davis was previously Deputy General Counsel. So he utilized people with whom he was familiar and have experience with judicial selections to gauge the qualifications of his slate of candidates. And the Governor might not want to select a judge to demonstrate the shortcomings of the process used to nominate judges. The commission sent the a conservative Republican Governor two liberal/Democrat nominations and one Conservative, effectively selecting the judge for him. If he picks one of the others, he’s ostracized by the people that elected him.
These three are not as neatly categorized as the previous poster suggests. I think you’d be hard pressed to put together a list of experience and qualifications for either Judge Hardwick or Judge Hollinger that demonstrate a particularly liberal or even Democratic bent. Rejecting all three - including the white, middle aged republican dude we can all pick out of a photo line-up as the gimme - is another hair-brained scheme dreamt up by the right-wing, neo-con legislators (and their henchman Jeff Roe) that want absolute control over all three branches of government. The shadow group, Better Courts for Missouri, and others just want to put their lame duck governor up to taking one last impotent stand against the Missouri non-partisan court plan. Don’t embarass yourself.
Missourileft,
I never said that they were clear cut liberals…only that some past actions (such as Judge Hardwick’s political contributions) point to a liberal bias. And I haven’t decided one way or another on whether the Missouri Plan is a good way to pick judges. I was merely answering EPT50’s two questions as to why the people who reviewed the nominees were on the review panel and why the Governor would reject all three. Personally, I have no stake in the selection…was just trying to answer the previous poster’s questions. I’ll let people more intimately involved with the judicial system decide if the Missouri Plan is faulty.
To clarify, I meant the governor should not embarass himself. I cannot think of a better way than the Missouri plan to insulate the judicial selection process (and therefore judges and the court decisions they make) from partisan influence. What BCM and other social egenda terrorist groups are striving for is a way to infuse the process with partisan politics on the front end with litmus-test selection criteria and “accoutability” (read keeping the judges in line with the neo-con agenda even if the law and constitution would dictate a divergent outcome) on the back end. The Missouri plan is empeding the march to the new republican utopia in Missour-uh therefore it must be dismantled.
missourileft,
Are you ignorant as to the so-called non-partisan plan, or do you really wish to withhold the truth?
In 1940, when the voters adopted the plan, the state bar of Missouri was a benevolent society. In 1944 the Missouri Supreme Court created a rule that made the Missouri Bar Association fall under the control of the Court. This changed the dynamic of the Appellate Selection Commission by giving them 4 to 3 control over appointment.
The ballot language of the 1976 amendment, that removed the Governor’s ability to reject the panel, did not disclose such to the voters. The language was as follows:
“Changes authority and jurisdiction of Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, and circuit courts; abolishes all other courts; creates associate circuit judges; amends non-partisan plan; amends judges retirement provisions; abolishes constables and St. Louis City prosecuting attorney; municipal courts become divisions of circuit courts.”
Do you even see the word Governor in the ballot language? I don’t. The citizens of Missouri were scammed, and the Bar, now under control of the Supreme Court, is perpetuating the scam.
The Missouri Supreme Court seems to be laughing at the voters. In 1992, after three Bar Associations gave Judge Hutcherson poor reviews, the voters chose not to retain him. What did the Missouri Suprem Court do? They placed Hutcherson in Senior Judge status, and placed him on the bench in Camden County. There, the voters could not remove him and were not made aware of his past poor reviews. Only the Missouri Supreme Court can remove a Senior Judge from the bench. Talk about having the ultimate power. That was a slap in the face of the voters
Only Missouri and Nebraska permit the Supreme Court to have sole removal authority. In Missouri, they control who gets on the bench, and control who gets removed (except for retention elections every 12 years).
Judicial Performance Reviews are provided by the Missouri Bar Association (remember they fall under control of the Court, by Rule). Albert Kales, the mastermind behind the merit plan stated;
“Since the business of directing the politically ignorant voter how to vote has fallen into the hands of a professional class and since the prize to be won is the control of governmental power, it is not to be wondered that the profession has become highly organized for the purpose of achieving its object; that men of extraordinary power and ability have arisen as its leaders, and that to a very great extent the object of the organization has been achieved.”
Isn’t that exactly what the Missouri Bar is doing?
baby blunt has screwed up everything he’s done.
Why should we think he can get one this right?
Huh? You have obviously been eating a steady of diet of undigestible right wing spin without paying any attention to what you’re hearing. For instance, can you tell me why BCM and the other groups have been pushing the governor for weeks to reject the entire panel if - as you assert in your post - the amendment by ballot initiative in 1976 revoked his authority in the matter. Also, I don’t see the word governor in that lanquage, but I also don’t see anything in the form of a question that was put to the voters. Who ever fed you that line, claiming it to be the language on the ballot, has not provided ALL the language. Also, you claim retention elections only occur every 12 years, but you are forgetting the most important one that occurs in the first year after appointment. I have to question, therefore, who is feeding you these random scraps of information and what are their intentions in keeping you ignorant on all of the facts relevant to the Missouri Plan and in obfuscating the truth?
missourileft,
Thanks for asking. Prior to the 1976 Amendment, the Governor could reject the panel of nominees and the Appellate Selection Commission was required to submit a new panel to the Governor. The 1976 Amendment gave the Appellate Selection Commission authorization to make the appointment, should the Governor fail to do so within 60 days.
The ballot language that I quoted is complete and accurate. That’s all that was presented to the voters. It was Constitutional Amendment #6 on the August 3rd 1976 special election ballot. I have the copy from the Secretary of State’s Office and the results from the Saint Louis County Board of Elections sitting right in front of me. This small amount of language presented on the ballot almost completely re-wrote Article V of the Missouri Constitution. It repealed 37 sections and adopted 33 new sections in lieu thereof. The question is simple; Constitutional Amendment #6 “…” YES or NO.
The term of a newly appointed judge expires on December 31st, following the General Election after 12 months in office. This is not necessarily after one year (General Elections only occur every two years). It may give the judge almost 3 years in office before they stand for retention the first time. -See Article V, Section 25(c) of the Missouri Constitution.
,b>I notice that you managed to avoid commenting on Judge Hutcherson’s retention loss and his subsequent appointment to the bench by the Supreme Court. Why is that?
I can assure you that it is the Missouri Bar that is guilty of obfuscation, not I.
If this is truly a merit plan; why has no definition of such merit ever been established? Is 10 years of practicing law more, or less, meritorious than that of 2 years on the bench as an Associate Circuit Court Judge? Is 10 years as a prosecutor of more merit than 10 years practicing family law?
A little FYI- I don’t get my information from BCM. If they’re lucky, they get it from me. Should you desire more information, i.e. a scan of the ballot language, what the Constitution looked like before and after the 1976 Amendment, etc. -You can contact me at: motruth@live.com
October 3rd 3:40PM -No contact from missourileft.
I guess it was more important to make accusations than it was to look at the supporting documents.