Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Show Your Support Tonight for Justices Quince, Pariente, and Lewis!


Sorry to keep beating the drum about this issue, but when you read a report like this from the NYT it just ticks you off:
“I think it’s a mistake for a party, as a party, to state a position that a certain judge should be thrown out, because then you are introducing partisanship into a system that is supposed to be nonpartisan,” said Bob Martinez, a prominent Republican lawyer who was once the United States attorney for the Southern District of Florida. “And when you have elected officials, on the right or left, criticizing judges publicly it can become very dangerous and it can undermine the public’s faith in the judiciary.”

Democrats say the campaign is really about giving Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, the chance to appoint three new justices. The Florida Legislature also wants greater control of the judiciary — an effort that began last year with House Speaker Dean Cannon and is continuing with a proposed amendment on the ballot this year.

“All of this is an attempt to hijack the court,” said Dick Batchelor, a Democrat and former State House member who is working with Defend Justice From Politics, one of several counteroffensives. 
“This is all about raw politics. It has nothing to do with jurisprudence.”

Americans for Prosperity, an organization founded by the Koch brothers, recently joined in the battle and began broadcasting television advertisements in several cities highlighting the health care amendment ruling. The group also plans to highlight other cases. 
Tell the Koch brothers to take their toilet paper money elsewhere and leave our courts alone.

The big event is tonight from 5:30 to 7:00 at the downtown Intercontinental Miami, or you can contribute online: 

23 comments:

  1. You forgot the part about feudalism equals freedom because freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  2. CITIZENS UNITED BABY!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why do you hate America, socialists?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Awesome awesomeness

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm really excited about the receptions tonight at the Intercontinental. Not so much so I can support the three justices, but so I can stop receiving 6 emails per day about the event from this guy Philip Freidin!

    ReplyDelete
  6. F them bitches. What did they ever do for me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Amazing! Are we on the same planet? You should wake up and realize, indeed simply look at the polls, that Americans hate judges, who rank just above lawyers. The electorate isn't stupid. It has learned that judges legislate from the bench and routinely ignore the law. The real complaint in your posting is, to translate, that "judicial independence" really is a code word for liberal politics.

    Your underlying assumption is that the greater control the electorate has over the judiciary even if through the legislature, is inherently evil while current "enforcement" (a.k.a. "judicial legislation") is ennobling. Quite frankly, whichever side of the fence you are on, as a society we have always trusted the electorate in the long-term and not unaccountable rulers. Whatever makes our "out-of-control" judicial class more accountable to the electorate should be encouraged and not pilloried. Don't you find it interesting to have read the myriad of news articles condemning the US Supreme Court for not being "accountable" to the US citizenry?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Remember when fil dreidel was relevant?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have a Phil Dreidel I made it out of clay.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Isn't it time to point out that judges legislation from the bench gave us the Common Law, the greatest flowering of individual liberty the world has seen. Legislatures gave us the war on drugs.

    The electorate is not stupid, it is evil. When guys like 8:24 start their rants, punch them in the face. Never forget, Hitler was democratically elected.

    The life of the law is not logic but experence. Legislators are cooks and their statutes are bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  11. hey 8:24. The only real judicial activists are the conservative Judges. They cloak themselves in the Federalist society bullshit, but they are hypocritical and they engage in more result oriented jurisprudence than their so called liberal counterparts could even dream about.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @8:24

    No, we are not on the same planet. I live on the planet with melting icecaps. You live on planet Kolob where all is happy and gay, but not homosexual.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @8:24 responds:

    Wow! Seems like I hit a nerve. I should start my own blog given the touchy responses I immediately received!

    @6:53: at least you are honest enough to admit judges legislate from the bench. No great surprise there, the American public over the last decade has come to realize this… And our unaccountable federal judiciary is the only branch of government not responsible to US citizens. In judges we trust since we have no alternative. At least, in Florida, we can vote out of office incompetent, senile, power-hungry and venal judges who misuse the bench. I am not saying most federal judges fall into the above categories. To the contrary they try and do their best. It is the "bad apples" who do the most damage and that have turned our federal court system into a veritable "Tower of Babel." There is absolutely no mechanism to remove the "bad apples" and the federal system has effectively devolved into a judicial system where many individual judges create their own "law" --- many times contrary to the wishes of the electorate expressed through their elected representatives. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. At least for a sizable percentage of our federal judiciary. How do you get these power hungry judges out of "office" when they have, as a "tribe," made themselves unaccountable? I trust the electorate not an unaccountable class of political appointees.

    As for the "greatest flowering of individual liberty the world has seen" being created by an unaccountable judiciary, that is sheer rhetoric. The roots of liberty spring from religion and an innate human recognition and response to the benefits of "fairness." Not the fiction of an ennobling judiciary leading the unwashed into nirvana.

    @10:57: read what you just said. You too, don't trust an unaccountable judiciary. You simply want an unaccountable judiciary that fits into your particular political persuasion.

    @1:10: first, buy water wings. Seriously, move to Antarctica where the ice has recently grown to unprecedented record levels.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I for one look forward to class warfare where the streets run red with Republican blood.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 8:24, so you were strongly in favor of the Supreme Court upholding Obamacare?

    ReplyDelete
  16. 4:46
    I was against the Supreme Court even making that decision. There should have been a national referendum on the subject. It proves my point that a single vote changed the course of our nation. The electorate should have made that decision in a national referendum, and not by a single man who is above the law by arbitrarily, through a fluke in history, being able to decide it.

    The change was so dramatic that even a president and congress (both subject to quick flip-flops depending on "polls") should have been entrusted with such a dramatic change in our system.

    Welcome to Venezuela!

    ReplyDelete
  17. 8:24 a single vote? How about Bush v Gore? It isn't that you and I disagree over what kind of Judges we have--it is that we disagree over whether any political party should try to mislead the electorate in a partisan manner on the retention issue. It is bad enough that they mislead the electorate in legislative and executive elections.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 5:25:
    "we disagree over whether any political party should try to mislead the electorate in a partisan manner on the retention issue." I guess the impasse is who is doing that, isn't it?

    The judiciary has evolved a method to grab control of our society, by simply rewriting and creating new law from the bench. The public be damned, right or left. If the unwashed electorate, so you seem to say, is too stupid to see through election fraud, then let's take the legislature power from them so that a self appointed class (the judiciary) can "guide" us in the right and noble direction (and of course you want your own handpicked judges doing that!). Welcome to a benevolent dictatorship! If you truly believe that should be how our society should be run (and unfortunately is being run), then why are you so against conservative judges controlling our future? The reality is that at the end of the day a democracy, stupid unwashed citizens or not, should have the maximum possible control over their future and not have it decided by a class that has, over a decade or two, effectively evolved a way to conduct a bloodless 'coup' over our society by routinely "interpreting" the law in self-serving, arbitrary, and in some cases corrupt ways without being answerable to anyone. Wasn't that the fate we escaped in the middle ages?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Wow. You are a lunatic.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 6:09:

    Great argument! You should be a judge!

    ReplyDelete
  21. So criticizing judges is out of bounds now? Too bad, this blog had a pretty good run.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Foolish me! I guess the plethora of political ads I see everywhere ... to elect Quince, Pariente, and Lewis ... are really just an optical illusion!

    They don't exist!

    Who is paying for them?

    What is expected in return?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think the Republican Party is going all the way back to its first President, Abraham Lincoln. Here are words from his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861: the intention of the lawgiver is the law.
    I think many Republicans want judges who are called originalists, as opposed to judges who legislate from the bench.
    My $.02 on this topic is if judges want to legislate, they should withdraw from the judicial branch of government and run for office in the legislative branch.

    ReplyDelete