Supreme Court Allows New York Judicial Conventions
A strange sight was reported in Bushwick: Brooklyn Democratic Party Leader Vito Lopez was seen dancing in the streets and singing the praises of Justice Scalia.
Okay...so maybe Vito wasn't dancing and singing in the streets of Bushwick...but I am sure he was tempted. The Supreme Court just gave him a belated Christmas gift.
New York State has a system for choosing certain judges through an insider convention which basically allows party leaders to dominate the process, creating some pretty disgusting scandals, at least in Brooklyn (see, for example, here and here. The system basically made judgeships a political plum that party bosses could give out with little or no regard for qualifications or honesty. It also means that most people who get nominated for judicial spots have had to donate to the party boss.
Margarita Lopez Torres was one victim of this system. She was punished by the Brooklyn Democratic machine because she refused to hire Vito Lopez's daughter. Vito and the machine blocked her nomination to a state supreme court position. She then went on to file a lawsuit against the party on the grounds that the judicial convention system was unfair. A court agreed,as did two appeals courts. The Supreme Court of the US disagreed and struck down the lower courts' rulings, re-allowing the judicial convention system on the grounds that prohibiting the judicial convention violated the First Amendment rights of political parties.
Now I have to say this strikes me as fairly stupid since the corruption of the convention system could be said to violate the rights of the entire state to have good judges. But law does not produce the best decisions. The best the legal system can do is produce LEGAL decisions. The fact that the Supreme Court decision was UNANIMOUS is telling. In the eyes of the Supreme Court judges it seems the right of the party to limit who the voters can vote for trumps the need for good judges. The former is, in their eyes, covered by the Constitution while the latter is not.
Judge Scalia wrote the decision for the court:
"A political party has a First Amendment right to limit its membership as it wishes and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court.
Justice Stevens seems to have recognized the problems with the judicial convention system in his comment on the decision:
"The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws," Stevens said, quoting [Thurgood] Marshall.
What this means is an wide avenue for corruption is reopened. This is not to say that all products of the judicial convention are either corrupt or inadequate. But some have been and will be again since the system is perfectly designed to make judgeships political rewards. But I should note that other systems are not perfect either. There is something wrong about possible judges having to raise money for campaigns to get elected as well. Interestingly, the methods by which people become judges is one of the least discussed but most vulnerable parts of a democratic system. There is no question that the system in NY State is about the most corruption-friendly system you can imagine. But apparently the First Amendment supports the right of political parties to have such ripe opportunities for corruption.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Corruption | judicial elections | Supreme Court
A little over the top, no?
Submitted by Gothanonymous Reader (not verified) on 20 January 2008 - 9:07pm.
Or maybe, just maybe, the issues in the case weren’t for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide. This was a unanimous decision by the way, and I highly doubt that you really think that either John Paul Stevens or Ruth Bader Ginsberg are stupid, or bought by anyone.
Keep in mind...
Submitted by mole333 on 20 January 2008 - 9:59pm.
I pointed out that it was unanimous. Furthermore, it was Dem and Repub State parties that were appealing, so there were reasons for both sides of the bench to side with their party structure rather than the people. And I also feel that there is a whiff of protecting the rights of a corporate entity (the Party) over the rights of individuals. That has been a trend in American jurisprudence that I have found worrisome whoever goes for it, right or left. It sees individual liberties are eroding, while corporate rights are ever more strengthened. That seems pretty damned funky to me.
Remember that two lower appeals court rulings went the opposite way from the Supreme Court. Of course the Supreme Court ruling, particularly a unanimous one, will stand. That's what we now have to work with. But I doubt the lower appeals courts were stupid or bought by those opposing conventions. I think this is a definite grey area of Constitutional law...and I happen to feel the Supremes went the wrong way on this. But that's what we have.
This is definitely a case of the worst option winning out. That said, I do not know the best option. Some favor this convention system, but that seems to be the option with the MOST chance of corruption. Some favor primary elections, but that means you have candidates having to do massive fundraising, which opens up other avenues for corruption. Merit-based appointment by the Governor is another option I have heard pushed as being the best...but how is appointment by the governor less open to corruption? Those appointed by the governor will be beholden to the governor.
So I honestly am not advocating a particular system, but it did seem like the convention system was the worst option.
I Disagree With This Ruling
In reality, either Vito Lopez has now bought the Supreme Court or the Court is so stupid that they think we, the voters, can't select our own judges. Judgeships are a patronage job (look at Deer) and they shouldn't be. Until Lopez is thrown in jail with Norman, I will vote for the candidate he and his cronies DON'T endorse.