Should only lawyers and judges vote on judges? That is exactly what LA’s legal newspaper the Metropolitan New-Enterprise editorialized yesterday. The paper is really mad at CRA for opposing Joyce Kennard and the GOP folks that filed the lawsuit challenging Jerry Brown’s status as a candidate for Attorney General. Eventually the editorial does criticize Democrats for "partisanship." This is their conclusion.
"All of this points to the need to revamp judicial elections in California, removing them from partisan political influences by restricting voting to those “admitted to practice”—that is, judges and lawyers."
Yes, that would solve the problem; The Bar Associations has never rated conservatives poorly because of a partisan bias. We should let lawyers control the laws of the land. The unlearned in law just aren’t bright enough to make such weighty decisions. Those that are practicing ambulance chasers are much more qualified to decide who should sit on the Supreme Court of California than you. How dare non-lawyers even nominate these judges, let alone vote on making laws. It is outrageous.
I’ll make a deal with the editors. I’ll let you pick all the judges, but then only you have to follow what they say. See the whole editorial here.
BTW: A few notes.
One is in their attack on CRA they mentioned that I’m not an attorney. But in the article about Jerry Brown, they don’t mention that some of those filing it were attorneys. Why? Their bias of course.
Two, is all the Met reporters are attorneys. In the editorial they attribute quotes to me that they say I made in an interview Friday. Those quotes are from a press release I issued the week before, not an interview I had with them Friday. Maybe lawyers should pick the judges and journalists should pick the journalists.
October 21st, 2006 at 12:00 am
Mike,
Thank you for this post and the information.
Well the elitists at the Met news organization have arrived and are going to save us from ourselves by making sure only lawyers and judges will vote to keep or not judges and appeals court justices! After all, God forbid that regular everyday people should be allowed to “judge” the judges – why that would be….democracy in action!
Of course there are big flaws in the Met’s reasoning which Mike picked up on – who will choose the judges to begin with. Taking the Met’s elitist reasoning to its logical conclusion, only judges and attorneys would appoint judges and justices (after all sometimes the people elect non-lawyers to be Governor and State Senators). O and lets not forget that it is legislators and the people through the initiative process that make the laws the judges are to interpret and enforce. Well if average people who are not lawyers and judges can’t “judge” who should be a judge, they certainly can’t be trusted to make laws too! In one fell swoop we get rid of those pesky legislative and administrative braches. Only one branch of government needed – the all wise and all powerful judiciary!
The Met makes a note that you (Mike) are not an attorney to imply you don’t know what you’re talking about. Let me say, as an attorney admitted to practice in California that I have no problem with California voters from all walks of life (including elected officials like Mike Spence) considering whether or not specific judges reflect their values and uphold the rule of law rather than legislating from the bench.
The role of bar associations should be what they are now – just like CRA or any other organization – they give their opinion only as to a potential judge’s fitness to be a judge. Others (Governors, legislators and, later, the voters) make the actual decisions. The state constitution providing for judges standing for election (or in the case of appeals court justices – for “retention”) should be left alone and the voters who are “governed” should remain the final arbiters of those who “govern” including the judiciary.
Now lets get back to the debate about if these judges and justices deserve our support or not!
Thanks Mike and the CRA for stepping out on this important issue!