If I understand Kansas's process correctly, the bar association elects 5 members to a committee and the governor appoints 4. That committee submits a list of names (I think 3) to the governor, and he appoints one of those three named to the court. Which means that even with a conservative governor, house, and senate, if liberals controlled the bar association*, they could continue to put hand-picked liberals on the Supreme Court. Even over the wishes of every elected official and even every voter in the state.
Perhaps it is ironic that the above chart calls Kansas' arrangement "elitist." The history of such an arrangement goes back to the Kansas Populist - in the historical sense of the word - heydays and was specifically designed to introduce "expertise" into the process, to keep "corrupt" politicians from abusing the process and putting unworthy judges on the court. After all, who could know better than other lawyers what lawyer was most qualified to sit on the Supreme Court? But it speaks to the incredible naivete' of Progressives both then and now. Yes, one can make a good argument that lawyers may know best**, but it also assumes that what is best for the lawyers is what is also best for the rest of us, or that lawyers will put the interests of the public over their own interests, or that lawyers are somehow immune to the political machinations and temptations to power that Progressives found so abhorrent in politicians***.
Not to mention that as soon as you take the selection of members of the government's most powerful branch out of the hands of politicians - in other words, when you grant "independence" from the voters - you remove the reality of self-government.
UPDATE: Governor Switchback is on the case. Well, that's a relief.
* hey, it could happen.
** I happen to think it a meaningless argument, because there is no objective qualification for the 'best' person to sit on the court.
*** The existence of the Fed shows that the same argument works for bankers as well.
View Bill Hoyt's profile
Posts
4 comments:
Yeah, and the best we ordinary citizens can do is vote "NO" on their retention when their "term" is up--whenever that is.
And, despite everyone I know insisiting that everyone vote "no" on all judges up for retention, I have yet to hear of one being removed from the bench.
Ironically enough, the Kansas Bar Association now has a review process you can access online which will help you determine whether to vote "yes" or "no" on retaining judges up for retention.
Hmmmmmm
I'm glad I live in Texas, where the voters get to choose who bends them over the barrel.
I always found it ironic that the public gets so upset at the thought that some government contractors actually manage some of the decision making process in the federal bureaucracy, but then don't bat an eye that Congress is mostly lawyers.
Apparently this preposterous process is spelled out in the state constitution. A couple of taxpayers have sued the state to stop the governor from appointing, citing 14th Amendment concerns.
I'm not a big fan of finding constitutions unconstitutional, but I would hope that lawsuit might at least lead to a proposed amendment. If the GOP, which will has a 31-9 advantage in the senate and one of similar proportion in the house, cannot get a 2/3rds majority to put it on the ballot, then they deserve to have their laws thrown out by the liberals they are allowing on the court.
Post a Comment