Given the recent insistence by many Republicans that Kansas should require Senate confirmation of state Supreme Court justices, the process for choosing a justice to replace the retiring Justice Donald Allegrucci will be closely watched. The Supreme Court Nominating Commission will review applications and conduct interviews Nov. 6 and 7 with the 14 applicants, immediately offering the governor its three preferred names to choose from within 60 days. Three people with strong Wichita ties are on the list: Kansas Court of Appeals Judge Tom Malone, formerly a judge in Sedgwick County District Court; Wichita attorney Timothy Moore; and Sedgwick County District Judge Greg Waller. The best-known contender, of course, is Waller, whose deft handling of BTK serial killer Dennis Rader’s confessions is now the stuff of numerous real-crime shows about the case. It’s also notable that should Waller advance through the commission’s screening and prevail to be the governor’s pick, he would be the first African-American justice in the high court’s history.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
10 Comments
Topics for the Kansas Press to investigate instead of ignoring:
* Which two of the 14 applicants gave money to Sebelius in the most recent reporting period? Which one gave $1000? [Future: Did any give Sebelius or Morrison money in the reporting period ending soon?]
* Name the three of the 14 candidates who have given Sebelius more than $1000. Which one has given Sebelius more than $2000? Does this $2000+ in contributions give this candidate the “inside track” to the appointment?
* Which Wichita-connected candidate has given Sebelius political money?
* Name the two candidates that have given Paul Morrison for Attorney General $500 or more.
Because the process is heavily tilted toward getting more liberal Supreme Court judges, why does the Kansas press ignore how flawed this process is?
Starting with the nominating commission, the process is flawed: The link http://www.kscourts.org/newsrel.htm#10/16/06 gives the names of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission.
Political Profile of Members of the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission:6 Democrats, 2 Republicans, 1 Republican for Moorehttp://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/07-03b.htm
Recent updates:http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/07-03/index.htmhttp://www.saljournal.com/blogs/?p=1134
The flawed process explains the makeup of the current Kansas Supreme Court:
Sebelius continues packing Kansas Supreme Court with Democrats: 5 Democrats Vs. 2 Republicans when Kansas has only 27% Democrats!http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2005/07-22.htm
Just yesterday U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the process by which judges are selected:
Scalia Rips Judges on Abortion, Suicidehttp://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/10/21/ap3109747.html
“Scalia added, ‘The more your courts become policy-makers, the less sense it makes to have them entirely independent.’”…
“Scalia, during a talk on the judiciary sponsored by the National Italian American Foundation, dismissed the idea of judicial independence as an absolute virtue. He noted that dozens of states, since the mid-1800s, have chosen to let citizens elect their judges.
‘You talk about independence as though it is unquestionably and unqualifiably a good thing,’ Scalia said. ‘It may not be. It depends on what your courts are doing.’”
With the Kansas Supreme Court setting Kansas education policy, and usurping the legislature’s power of the purse — all over the word “suitable” — Sebelius’ second term and additional appointees to the Kansas Supreme Court will affect Kansas for many years to come.
Why isn’t this an issue in the election now?
Do you know what the difference is between you and me, Meadowlost?When I realized nobody (except some guy who owns a used car lot in California) was reading… I had enough sense to stop.
Ooops, I meant to say:”I had enough sense to stop writing my blog”.
Anyone who thinks the insane political gauntlet that nominees for the federal bench must go through should be adopted in Kansas needs to have their head examined. Those who want a change are just disappointed that the Republicans don’t hold the Governor’s office. After all, the Republicans control the Kansas Senate, don’t they? How long has it been since Democrats controlled the Kansas Senate? Not in my lifetime. Gosh, could all this pretended hubbub really just be about whether Republicans or Democrats are in power? Duh. The Supreme Ct. Nominating Commission has done a remarkably good job of selecting excellent Supreme Court justices in this state for 30 years. And their interview process is not inextricably intertwined with political debate, as it would if the process included getting the blessing of Kansas senators.
Most Judges I’ve met are amazing people. Listening to people that lie to you all day or are perverted, criminally empowered or just looney takes the patience of a saint.
To sit through all of that year after year and make a decision as it applies to the law is absolutely top notch.
I don’t think narrowing down choices by whether they are conservative or liberal on a subject matters as much as they do not try to legislate from the bench.
That a judge be judicial according to law and not legislate new laws from the bench. Judges are appointed/elected to INTERPRET laws not MAKE them.
With all that said, the method is a way to narrow down the choices amongst many fine candidates seeking positions as the Supreme Court in Kansas. I’m glad some Wichitans are included in some of the choices.
For all of you who are tired of reading conservatives rants and paranoia, read this article. It explains everything. :)
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1142722231554&call_pageid=1105528093962&col=1105528093790
“I don’t think narrowing down choices by whether they are conservative or liberal on a subject matters as much as they do not try to legislate from the bench.”
You mean like when the Supreme Court interposed itself into the election re-count issue in Bush v Gore which is specifically a STATE’S RIGHT ISSUE under the 10th amendment?
Or when the right-wingers wanted the courts to intervene in the Terri Schaivo case, even though they couldn’t?
“Writing legislation from the bench” is what conservatives say judges do when they rule against conservative causes.
Period.
Capn,
I think you need to do some research on what activism and legislating from the bench actually means.
The court case from Florida was referred to the Supreme Court of the United States. That’s how our judicial system works?
I didn’t follow the Shaivo case, so won’t comment on it.
If you want my views on what legislating from the bench is, I will tell you what I think it is and isn’t.
When a law is deemed unconstitutional by a Judge, that is not legislating from the bench. That is interpretation of the law as prescribed.
When a Judge rules against state that an arrested felon’s rights were violated because he held in communicado for longer than 72 hours and subject to interrogation without an attorney. That is protection under the law as interpreted by a Judge.
When a Judge rules against a state legislature bill and states they must increase the funds to schools then that is legislating from the bench. Nothing the legislature did was in violation of any law that I’m aware of and a remedy proposed by a Judge or Judges that negates acts of a legislature. If a judge thinks he can adjudicate every budget of every bill and make his own budget, then they have violated the very principles of the separation of powers. The legislature/Congress controls the purse not the Judicial branch.
Now if a legislature or Congress puts in a bill that discriminates against certain school districts because of race or color then the Judge has every right and responsibility to reject the legislation and force the government to correct the prejudice.
And so on and so forth.
Hey Meadowlark – does you opinion represent the views of the Salina Journal and its employees?
JM, I’m presuming the example you give of a judge “legislating” was the Kansas controversy? If so, the District Court held the then existing School Finance Law unconstitutional, violating the provision of the Kansas Constitution (Article 6, Section 6(b)) stating “The legislature shall make suitable provision for the finance of the educational interests of the state. * * *” This holding was upheld on appeal by the Kansas Supreme Court.
The issue then became one of the remedy to be applied, as the existing law was unconstitutional. In fashioning a remedy, the Supreme Court looked at the Augenblich and Meyers study commissioned by the Legislature; the subsequent study conducted by the Post Audit branch, under the control of the Legislature; both of which found the existing level of funding to be inadequate to meet the Constitutionally placed burden. Now, you may well disagree with the studies; at trial, the A&M study was introduced as evidence, and not refuted by competent evidence introduced by the Plaintiffs. The subsequent study, it can be argued, should not have been considered at all by the Supreme Court, as it was not part of the original record.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that Judge Bullock found the original law unconstitutional as then being applied; this finding was upheld. A remedy to cure the unconstitutionality was passed by the legislature, and accepted by the Supreme Court. Now, how is this legislating from the bench?