Judicial Elections in South Carolina - Can we do better?
Tonight, Justice Don Beatty deserves to be congratulated for his election to the South Carolina Supreme Court. For him, his family, his friends and supporters, it is a moment of pride and accomplishment, and a rare honor for which he hopefully is well suited.Behind the honor and prestige that will come with his seating in our state’s highest court is a wreckage-strewn battleground, instead of a dignified and deliberate debate. Television ads, media releases and internet campaigns weighed in, lobbing all sorts of accusations – this candidate was a liberal, that candidate’s supporters were driven by racism, backroom deals were being made by legislators, and so on, and so on.
Having the legislature fill judicial slots was intended to allow for thoughtful consideration of candidates, as well as to help avoid the sorts of vicious attack-driven political combat that have been seen in some states with judicial elections. While we’ve seen a degree of contentiousness in some judicial elections, nothing could have prepared anyone for what just took place.
With Pandora’s Box opened, we can expect more brawling of this kind to take place when other key judicial vacancies occur unless major changes are made. Now is the time to make those changes, while the memories of what just transpired are fresh on everyone's minds.
South Carolina has long believed that our courts would not benefit by allowing judicial and legal “insiders” to control how judges are selected. This is an indispensible central principle that we should protect. However, the sorts of political free-for-alls that just took place cannot be allowed to become commonplace, or another elite - political special interest groups - will exercise undue influence upon our courts and legal community.
What’s the answer? Frankly, I don’t think anyone knows. But the last two weeks should give us a pretty good idea of what we don’t want to see happen again.
Thanks for writing on this topic and commenting on my blog.
By the way, I'm throwing my hat in the ring in the presidential race. Check out "Why I Should Be President," my new blog.
those SCRG goons would pour on the TV ads and they'd all stumble along, just like good idiots.
that's the south carolina way. sieg heil! heil to the religious right and the kook brigade!!!
Think about it--after intense scrutiny the three candidates were all deemed qualified. The Judge that was elected was deemed most qualified by a diverse panel. And Justice Williams was deemed most qualified by the South Carolina Bar. So, it was a win/win situation no matter who was chosen.
The extremist groups that opposed Justice Beatty did not cite judicial rulings as the basis for their oppostion--rather they disliked him on ideological grounds alone. This is not the way to pick judges.
In the long run, I suspect that all the folks who spread vicious and unfounded rumors will get their just due.
The Bar gave Williams the highest ranking, followed by Hearn.
So Williams gets a 1st and a 3rd, Hearn gets two 2nd‘s, and Beatty gets a 1st and a 3rd. Keep in mind though that the Judicial Selection Committee includes non-lawyers and, if you will trumps the Bar.
I have read a number of Beatty opinions. I do not reach the same conclusions you reach. Beatty tends to side for the little guy if there is a bias. But, more important, opinions that he authors (or that his law clerk authors) tend to be upheld by the South Carolina Supreme Court.
I have a hard time with the idea of describing most opinions as “liberal” or “conservative.” Obviously, opinions such as Roe v. Wade not only create law, but are just stupid rather than “liberal.” But, in most cases appellate court judges just determine whether the lower court judge correctly decided the legal issues presented to him. So, I do not know how you decide that a ruling or a published opinion was either liberal or conservative.
Keep in mind though, that I believe the Judiciary should be a little more “liberal” than the Legislature. If not for the “liberal” Judiciary, our schools might well still be segregated, cops could beat the hell out of people to extract confessions, and we would have a State Religion which prevented us from shopping anywhere on Sunday.
The others were willing to play coy about it and let Beatty take a pasting, hoping nobody would ask what their affiliations were.
Don't think for one minute you'd get better from any of the other two. You'd probably get worse.