N.C. Trial Lawyers Lament Party Affiliations on Judicial Ballots

I remember back in the day when I was foolish enough to believe public officials, despite their political affiliation, would uphold and defend the rule of law and their Constitutions, both state and federal . Today, I laugh at such silly notions. What’s worse is I get angry when others are emphatic that these transgressions are infrequent and isolated particularly when it comes to the judiciary. We all know that’s not true especially when it comes to liberal judges.


The Charlotte Observer published an op-ed by James F. Watt and John R West, both are trial lawyers, who lament party affiliations on the ballot and reduced terms. Here is an excerpt:


Laws affecting the election of judges gain few headlines and, when they do, they provoke limited discussion in the public arena. When the General Assembly eliminated public funding for statewide judicial races, few outside the legal profession expressed concern. The same reaction followed when the General Assembly returned partisan labels to all candidates for the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals; likewise, when the law was passed to place those running from the Governor’s party first on the ballot in Court of Appeals races (each of those candidates won.) This year, the General Assembly has added partisan labels to those running for Superior Court and District Court races and eliminated judicial primaries, so that now a winning candidate has only to tally the most votes – not even a majority.


In its last session, the Senate proposed a constitutional amendment to shorten the terms of all judges in North Carolina to two years. Terms are currently eight years (except for district court judges who hold four- year terms). As Chief Justice Mark Martin stated, “Electing judges for two-year terms would force judges to raise money constantly, and would disrupt the administration of justice.”

All of these measures have a common denominator: an attempt to turn those pursuing judicial service – regardless of their intentions – into “regular politicians.”

The concept of judges as politicians runs contrary to the Founders’ fundamental ideal that those who serve in the judiciary would not be partisan politicians. The oath all of our judges take pledges allegiance to the Constitutions, state and federal, and to the rule of law. What judges do each day should have nothing to do with politics.



I have news for these two trial lawyers: judges are politicians and sometimes worse. I personally want to know their party affiliation because that is a leading indicator of their political philosophy and how they’ll rule, as I’ve made it quite plain at the beginning of this post.


Does anyone remember Howard Manning? He was the North Carolina judge who ruled that the General Assembly must violate a state law by funding preschool education for “at risk 4 year olds.” I kid you, not. This judge became not only a politician but a legislator as well. So don’t tell me that judges are objective arbiters of the law when we have jurist like Howard Manning sitting on the bench.

And I just love it when liberals quote Federalist Paper #78 when assuring the restraints of an independent judiciary. That was Hamilton’s response to the pseudonymous author Brutus’ Anti-Federalist paper #11. Here is an excerpt from Brutus and you tell me who was more prescient.

They will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or controul their adjudications.


How many times have we seen judges, whether at the federal or state level, who do not confine their rulings to any fixed or established rules, but to their political ideology? I can say with certainty, too many damn times.


Source:


http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article188865519.html


https://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2011/07/judge-rules-nc-taxpayers-must-fund.html


https://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2011/12/newt-gingrich-should-propose-repeal-of.html

 

WBT's Keith Larson: Charlotte's Master of the Mundane

 Anyone who listens to talk radio in the Charlotte/Mecklenburg County area is well aware of the slim pickings.  Many of us who don’t care for music have a choice between NPR, WBT, sports, or gospel stations.  Many times I can’t even get NPR.  That leaves me with 1110 WBT.

Keith Larson has the 9:00 – 12:00 slot.  Basically, he’s the warm up, or should I say filler until Rush Limbaugh comes on.  And he knows it.  A day doesn’t go by without this minor leaguer taking potshots at his better.  It really is unbecoming; even worse, is when he demeans the intellect of Sarah Palin.  I have news for you Mr. Larson; you’re no intellectual giant yourself.

I will give kudos to the LAMA man.  You do know how to stretch the mundane into a 3 hour show.

 I admit I half listen to Mr. Larson while I work.  But sometimes it comes to the point when silence is the better choice.  I swear, this man droned on about free cheeseburgers for the man who saved 3 women in Ohio for three hours.  He also, to my amazement, was able to complete a whole show on fat homeless people.  At 11:15, I finally shut off my radio.

But what really separates Mr. Keith Larson from all the other personalities that litter the airwaves is his “red jersey, blue jersey” dichotomy.  According WBT’s Master of the Mundane, we should eschew the political process as a means of protesting political parties.  But in reality, if we took his advice, the only people not participating would be the conservative voter.  The teat squawkers would continue to vote themselves goodies at our expense.

I have an excerpt from Jesse Norman’s book on Edmund Burke that addresses those whom disparage political parties.

No human institution is perfect, of course, and many political parties are highly imperfect institutions.  But the extraordinary fact is that properly functioning political parties have long been recognized in political theory as the very essence of mature democracy.  Through them, ideologies clash.  Different political opinions and concerns are stimulated, debated, and gathered into manifestos or programmes of government.  Policy ideas are developed in opposition and presented at elections.  Individuals are recruited, educated in the craft and traditions of politics and taught to campaign.  Power passes peacefully, from one party to another.  It is only through political parties and the whipping system or its equivalents that politicians are reliably able to carry into law policies on which they have been given a democratic mandate at elections.  The cure for those who hate political parties is to visit countries in which there are no such parties, or only one.

Source:  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/23/man-who-helped-rescue-3-kidnapped-women-in-ohio-gets-awesome-hometown-surprise/

http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=jesse+norman+edmund+burke&tag=googhydr-20&index=stripbooks&hvadid=25971110197&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=333050669892643173&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_gzitzt2s1_e