The Kansas House is debating again whether the state needs to change how it chooses its Kansas Supreme Court justices and Kansas Court of Appeals judges to include a federal-style Senate confirmation. Champions of change say the current system is political. But “we never talk about politics in those meetings. It just doesn’t come up,” said Wichita attorney Richard Hite, who chairs the nine-member nominating commission that chooses three nominees based on merit for the governor’s final decision.
To the idea that a Senate confirmation would be political, as Congress unerringly demonstrates, Alan Cobb of the Kansas chapter of Americans for Prosperity said: “This would be the politics of the people, versus politics of the lawyers.”
But surely the people realize that the state’s top courts need to be staffed by the top lawyers in the state, not by politicians.
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
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Political_mama on Palin abused power in Troopergate
- Heckler on Open thread 10/11
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 10/11
- biased1 on Open thread 10/11
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 10/11
- annie_moose on Open thread 10/11
- Chas on Open thread 10/11
- Heckler on Open thread 10/11
- mom on Palin abused power in Troopergate
- Jed on Open thread 10/11
24 Comments
The entire process of selecting judges now is highly political and dominated by left-wing attorneys. They don’t have to talk about politics, because they all tend to be liberals.
What’s the current makeup of the Seven Dwarves, 5 Democrats and 2 liberal Republicans? That’s certainly representative of the people of Kansas isn’t it?
We need to figure out how to cleanse the system of the tyrants we have now, and get some decent people on there who actually represent Kansas values.
Good grief, Grumpy, you act like all lawyers are dems. I know many who aren’t, so where does that leave your statements?
If I recall, the party of the Appeals Court Judges are not listed on the ballot. I might also point out that if you visit the websites of many in our state congress, it’s tough to find any info about party affiliation. Give it a try sometime.
hmmm afp i’m afraid of anything they propose.
my best ANGRY Ben impression.
“Waaaaaaa, waaaaaaaa, waaaaaaaaa, the democrats wont appoint republican wingnuts as judges. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa”
Hehehehe. Funny, that’s what some of us pro-choice people have said about bush appointing nazi’s to SCOTUS.
Sucks to be you in kansas right now!
I wonder if the preznit and alberto would stop their saturday night massacre of U.S. Attorneys if I just whined long and hard about it?
Naaaaaaaaaaa……….
Again, sucks to be you in kansas Angry Ben!
I also think Angry Ben just illustrated EXACTLY why we dont want to turn the appointment of judges into the kind of political free for all and wingnuts gone wild extravaganza that you KNOW Angry Ben and his ilk would support.
We have enough gridlock in topeka. Why let angry ben and his anti-choice hooligans create even MORE mischief and political theatre in topeka. You see what drama queens they are. DONT put operation rescue in charge of the Kansas Courts!
Dont we have enough wingnut grandstanding now?
ksfarmgrrl can you even post a message without belittling someone else?
Sucks when people think THE TRUTH is belittling. It is what it is. Deal with it.
And notice, when the wingnuts cant refute the facts, they attack the poster.
You get your CONservative wings Roscoe.
So Rhonda doesn’t think the Supreme Court Nominating Commission is political?
With the Eagle’s generous vacation benefit, perhaps Rhonda was on vacation last July and August:
Sebelius Replaces Appointee to Supreme Court Nominating Commission After 42 Days (August 13, 2006)http://www.saljournal.com/blogs/?p=1134
Sebelius appoints wife of “dean of Ellis County Democratic politics” to Supreme Court Nominating Commission.Is Sebelius Concerned about Qualified Justices on the Kansas Supreme Court? (July 3, 2006)http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/07-03/index.htm
And perhaps left-leaning folks are blind to the politics of this group:
Political Profile of Members of the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission: 6 Democrats, 2 Republicans, 1 Republican for Moore (July 3, 2006)http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/07-03b.htm
The purpose of liberal judges is to “legislate from the bench” on those issues that liberals can’t touch politically.Liberal judges enforce unpopular political views from the bench.Liberals scream when anyone points this out!
The appointment of judges in Kansas is about as political as it could possibly be, already!
The purpose of liberal judges is to “legislate from the bench” on those issues that liberals can’t touch politically.Liberal judges enforce unpopular political views from the bench.Liberals scream when anyone points this out!
The appointment of judges in Kansas is about as political as it could possibly be, already!
“The purpose of liberal judges is to “legislate from the bench” on those issues that liberals can’t touch politically.”
And the clearly stated purpose of the wingnut SCOTUS members by bushco is to overturn Roe v Wade. Which, the last time I checked is STILL supported by the majority of American voters. So.. their appointments are being made so they can legislate from the bench what the elected congress refuses to do?
And exactly WHO is subverting the majority voice in the free market place of ideas? I think it is the antichoice goons, not the liberal judges. Their only sin is that they want majority to rule and for abortion to be safe and legal.
Sorry paul rossell. YOU lose this one at the alter of the free market. YOUR appointed judges dont get to legislate from the bench.
Sucks to be you, no?
ksfarmgirl
Try some logic:
If the majority SUPPORTS Roe V Wade, why the hell do you need judges to support Roe V Wade?
Getting rid of Roe won’t make abortion illegal, it simply kicks the Federal Courts out of the legal process.
By the way, Doe V. Bolton actually is the more important decision. (I believe both Doe and Roe changed their minds on this issue, or claim that the ACLU took advantage of them in the first place!)
The majority should consider this question:”Do you support a third trimester abortion on a minor child without parental consent or notification?”
There are those who support Doe and Roe who would claim that Doe and Roe, together, would prohibit state action to prevent the above outcome.
The majority clearly does NOT support your views, or you would not need the courts to protect your views!
No Paul, nobody approves or likes abortion, but most people do realize the issue at hand is not black and white and that the woman should have final say over what happens to her.
The religious right just cannot say past anything other than babies dying, regardless of how awful their lives may be, the financial impact, the death of the mother…none of that matters when a woman is making a decision for herself. Nor the fact that many are the religious right that are heading into the clinics because their black/white view got them into that mess in the first place.
pmomI judge noone in that situation.
I would also tell you that I am considered a “Judas” by some prolifers because I would allow exceptions for “rape, incest and life of the mother.”
By the way, include those exceptions in an poll, and public opinion is pretty evenly split on making abortion illegal.
I would probably shut up on this topic, entirely, if Kansas law looked the same as, for instance, the laws in New York.
Again, if the public supports you, you don’t need the courts.
Government processes in the US are inherently political. The only people who don’t think so are the ones who agree on that particular issue.
Besides, who is foolish enough to believe that just because you are wearing the black robe means you are one of the best lawyers in Kansas?
The other problem with the current method is that it is a violation of equal access/representation. Five of the nine selecting judges are required to be lawyers, thus lawyers have more representation than other citizens in choosing judges. Since lawyers are not elected, there is no accountability for their selections.
Lawyers will pick judges that are favorable to them. Very few lawyers prosecute, so they will tend to pick judges that favor defendants in criminal trials, and “big money” in civil trials. Again, the people as a whole get the short end of the deal since we want criminals put away and want protection from big business interests.
The process needs to change so all the citizens have an equal voice either in direct elections or for both the people who nominate and approve. Right now, we have no voice in the majority of people who nominate.
Looks as I was right, ksfarmgrrl can’t post an intelligent message without insult.
If they didn’t staff the courts with Politicians, then it would be Friends & Family of Politicians.
I agree re: KSfarmgirl. It is tiresome.
If someone had the money and desire the Kansas system probably violates the one-man one vote.
You have select group of folks, the lawyers, selecting who runs 1/3 of our government, the executive branch.
How do you trust more, the people or the lawyers? I will side with the lawyers.
Just read Rhonda’s comments closer.
This proposed change makes it no more likely to have politicians on the bench than the system today.
What a red herring.
“I would also tell you that I am considered a “Judas” by some prolifers because I would allow exceptions for “rape, incest and life of the mother.”"
Paul, then you shouldn’t have asked the question you did without a qualifier.
George Santayana once said “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. Supreme Court judges are chosen in a manner set in the Kansas Constitution. Not in some manner decided by the un-informed that roam the halls of the Kansas Statehouse. WE THE PEOPLE voted in 1958. The reason for the contitutional amendment was caused by the shameful political conduct of Chief Justice William Smith, Governor Fred Hall and Lt. Gov. John McCurish, all Republicans. Never, ever, ever forget the “Triple Play” of 1956. The religious right that want to control the Supreme Court have to go through me and thee, and the power of OUR vote.
Thank you, thinkfirst, for reminding us of a particularly disquieting episode in Kansas history as it applies to Supreme Court appointments.
There’s no one perfect way to appoint judges/elect judges to an appellate or trial court. However the same is done, politics will be involved.
I believe that the judiciary should be free from political pressure. Thus, my belief that judges should not be elected by popular vote. It is my personal preference that anyone appointed to the bench (appellate or trial) be good ’students of the law’. Thus, the interaction of the bar with judicial appointments is, to my mind, needed.
The current legislative action is being taken by at least some who are still smarting over: 1) the school finance case; 2) the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court on the death penalty. I’m still upset by the Kansas Supreme Court decision many years ago that found that the existing differential in treatment of single versus married taxpayers was not a violation of equal protection (although the legislature, by its action, made the same moot).
The Anna Nicole Smith judge has done more to show the public the moronic demeanor of judges,the demigod mentality and the absolute disregard for the law and rules of the Court and evidence than any blog could accomplish in months of statements!