Efforts to buy justice should be thwarted
It’s right out of a John Grisham novel:
A company owned by a coal tycoon is sued for illegally destroying a rival business — and gets whacked by a jury. The verdict comes in at $50 million, plus punitive damages. When the case heads for appeal, the tycoon funnels more than $3 million into a political race for the state supreme court. The contributions are designed to unseat an incumbent justice — and are perfectly legal.
The challenger wins with 53.3 percent of the vote. The tycoon’s company comes before the state supreme court, and on a 3-2 vote, the verdict is set aside.
The new justice refuses to step away from the case. He votes with the majority.
Real intrigue follows. The state supreme court votes to rehear the appeal. One of the justices who voted with the majority removes himself after photos surfaced showing him vacationing with the tycoon (on the French Riviera) while the case was pending.
One of the justices who voted to uphold the verdict, meanwhile, also recuses himself. He had criticized the tycoon for pouring millions of dollars into the judicial election — calling into question his impartiality.
But the new justice again refuses to step aside. Indeed, by now, he is acting chief justice, and it falls to him to appoint replacements for the two justices who removed themselves from the case.
The court again sets aside the jury verdict.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court supplied the Hollywood ending. The case of the coal tycoon and multimillion-dollar campaign contributions is, in fact, real. It’s called Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. and arose in West Virginia. It actually inspired a John Grisham novel.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court held that the tycoon’s big money violates due process — specifically, “when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing a judge on a case by raising funds or directing the judge’s election campaign when the case was pending or imminent.”
These are no matters of idle interest to citizens in Missouri and Illinois.
Appellate court elections get ugly in Illinois. They attracted nearly $20 million in campaign contributions in 2000 and 2004, including more than $9 million over a seat on the appeals court in Mount Vernon that rules on cases from Madison and St. Clair counties.
Missouri’s been spared big-money races because of the state’s celebrated judicial appointment plan. State appeals court judges and trial judges in urban centers are nominated by non-partisan panels and appointed by the governor. That doesn’t take cash entirely out of the picture. Right-wing political forces — cheered on by the Federalist Society and The Wall Street Journal editorial page — hope to fund a statewide ballot initiative that would politicize the appointment process.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the main dissent in the Caperton case. He said he “fears” the decision would lead litigants to argue in courts across the country that contributions in judicial elections have undermined judges’ impartiality and ability to provide due process.
There’s no need for Mr. Roberts to worry. Money already has poisoned judicial elections. Parties that make large contributions and judges who accept them should be called out for participating in transactions that create the appearance of justice for sale.
Indeed, reform will come only if citizens complain — loudly and vehemently.
We will not sell justice is an important aspect of American law. Granted it is based upon British law but it dignifies the proceedings otherwise it is just murder for hire. Bribery has prevaded the political system to such an extent that the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court claims to be above money. It is a farce no one is above money well placed bribes are now considered legal when is fact they are not. As long as there is a constitution based upon the Magna Charta bribery will be illegal. It is a shame that educated people try to fool the less powerful with their justifications of crimes. Remember these men and women hold the power of life or death over Americans no one is above the law. Our legal system is not based upone divine right the law applies to lawyers foremost it is just sad that no one has the power to thwart their criminal advances.
So avoid elections of judges but don’t advocate the so-called “non-partisan” plan. Have the elected executive of the nation, state, county or city select a judge and have the legislature approve the selection. While not perfect, this system seems to be palatable to most folks. Or if you don’t like that a single person selects the judge, elect a panel to select several options to present to the executive.
The current plan gives preferential selective authority of judges to unelected members of a private association of lawyers who have already granted themselves exclusive authority to represent individuals before the court.
This is private manipulation to a far greater degree than someone trying to get a judge elected by the people. Why doesn’t Mr. Grisham write about that? Oh yeah, he’s one of them.
So here is a question for the PD editorial board. What possible benefit do we obtain by allowing unelected people to select judges? What assurances do we have that these unelected folks aren’t working for some company or more likely for themselves? The answer clearly is that there is no benefit and we have no assurances, but I would like to hear your response.
Yes, by all means, let’s let the lawyers pick all the judges. Who could argue with that? Then, let’s let the teachers elect the school board and the unions pick the board at GM…