Archive for the 'Attacks on Judges' Category
It is time for citizens who are concerned about protecting fair and impartial courts to stand up and denounce “vile smears” and other attacks on the courts, a Lambda Legal official warns in a column for SDGLN.com (San Diego Gay and Lesbian News).
The column by Eric Lesh, fair courts project manager for Lambda Legal, is headlined, “The despicable antigay attack on Arkansas’ courts.” Lesh criticizes a resolution by the Arkansas Legislative Council, submitted to the state Supreme Court, accusing a trial court judge of failing to uphold the state Constitution when he declared unconstitutional a state ban on marriage for same-sex couples (see Gavel Grab for more).
“Attacks on our courts are outrageous and put our system of justice at risk, but we do not have to resign ourselves to the ‘new normal’ of a politicized judicial branch,” Lesh writes. Lambda Legal is a Justice at Stake partner organization. Read moreNo comments
As a result of almost four years’ court contention, an opinion issued by Alaska State Supreme Court last Friday authorized the Alaska Judicial Council to release new information about judges within the three months prior to an election, reports Alaska Dispatch News.
According to the article, in 2010, the council advertised against former Alaska District Court Judge Richard Postma, who failed to be retained in the end. In response to voters’ complaints regarding the council’s authority before an election, the Supreme Court allowed it to make retention recommendations while forbidding it from issuing new information against the judge in the three months before an election.
Alaska Judicial Council Executive Director Susanne DiPietro described the new opinion, which freed the council to advertise and inform previous to an election, a “very good outcome for the council and the public.” “I think that the court is recognizing the importance of the council’s public information purpose,” she stated.
The Alaska Department of Law also praised the Supreme Court’s decision in a statement, which says “The Judicial Council plays a vital role in educating the public and ensuring that voters have the information needed to decide whether or not to retain a judge.”No comments
Ohio state legislator John Becker is renewing demands that federal judge Timothy Black be impeached, according to a report on the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s Cleveland.com news website. The threat followed Judge Black’s indication in recent days that he would strike down Ohio’s ban on recognizing marriages for same-sex couples that were performed in other states.
Becker also called for Black’s impeachment last year, following the judge’s ruling that Ohio must recognize marriages of same-sex couples legally performed elsewhere, when issuing death certificates (see Gavel Grab). Becker is the sole sponsor of a resolution in the Ohio House calling on the U.S. House to impeach Black. In a statement issued by his office, Becker accused Black of being influenced by “personal political bias” in his rulings, according to the Cincinnati.com website. But the president of the Cincinnati bar association, quoted in the same piece, maintained that Black was upholding the Constitution, not violating it. Click here for more on impeachment threats against judges.
Election watchers who observed the role played by The Family Leader in Iowa’s judicial retention elections in 2010 and 2012 will note that the group remains active on the court front. A Des Moines Register editorial entitled “Family Leader Is Wrong to Try to Bully Judge” covers recent action by the group, led by conservative activist Bob Vander Plaats. A column in the same paper by columnist Rekha Basu takes aim at what it calls the group’s “vendetta campaign.”
According to the Register, The Family Leader refers to its part in a successful effort to unseat three Iowa Supreme Court Justices in 2010, in a direct threat against Polk County District Judge Karen Romano. A recent ruling by Romano holds up implementation of an Iowa Board of Medicine regulation on medication abortions.
In a statement headlined “Remember the Romano,” The Family Leader references the 2010 judicial retention election and warns, “Apparently Judge Romano has not learned a lesson from that vote. The Family Leader encourages Iowans to remember Judge Karen Romano’s activism when she is up for retention in November 2016.
In its editorial, the Register calls the statement a “pre-emptive attack on a judge” that “should not be tolerated in this state.”No comments
At least one shot was fired into the home of a federal district judge in Florida. The judge, who was home, escaped injury in the early-morning shooting, and a window and glass door were shattered.
The FBI, U.S. Marshals Service, local Sheriff’s Office and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were investigating the shooting at the Jacksonville home of Judge Timothy Corrigan, the Florida Times-Union reported.
Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Will T. Scott narrowly won a judicial race eight years ago against then Supreme Court Justice Janet Stumbo. The two are once again running against each other in this year’s election, and the rematch “is no nicer,” a Lexington Herald-Leader article says.
In his TV advertisements, Scott has accused Stumbo “of being soft on crime.” One such ad says that Stumbo voted to overturn the convictions of two black men for murdering a pregnant woman.
Stumbo is running an ad which says Scott voted against convicting a man of abusing his three children for confining them to their rooms without food, water or access to a bathroom.
The Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee, which encourages judicial candidates to avoid false advertising, called Scott’s ad misleading because the images of pregnant white women it used were not involved in the case, the article reports. Read moreNo comments
A new ad released Wednesday by the Ohio Republican Party claims that Democratic Supreme Court candidate Bill O’Neill “sympathizes with rapists.” Republican Justice Robert Cupp has tried to distance himself from the ad and claimed he had no knowledge of its content, the Ohio Plain Dealer reports.
Mark Weaver, spokesman for Cupp’s campaign, said “Justice Cupp does not believe the purported ad is an appropriate approach to judicial campaigning, which is why he has not and would not approve a commercial like this.”
Matthew Henderson of the Ohio Republican Party confirmed that the ad was not brought to Justice Cupp’s attention beforehand, and that the party was doing it for themselves.
Ohio Democratic Party spokesman Jerid Kurtz argues that the “video is not possible without the consent of the campaign.” The ad refers to an opinion O’Neill wrote in 2000 which reversed a rape conviction, the article says. Read moreNo comments
Dane County Circuit Court Judge Juan B. Colas (photo) has received outraged letters and phone calls after ruling earlier this month against parts of Act 10, Wisconsin’s law that restricted collective bargaining for many public employees.
Judge Colas was accused of being a “cheap political hack for the Marxist Democratic Party” in one letter, and a “damned liberal activist kangaroo jurist” in another, reports the Wisconsin Law Journal.
Other angry individuals cited his race, and called Colas a “racist for belonging to the Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers Association.” These comments followed in the wake of Gov. Scott Walker’s petition attacking Colas for his ruling (see Gavel Grab).
Chief judge of the Fifth Judicial Administrative District, Bill Foust, criticized the harsh responses to Colas’ ruling as well as Gov. Walker’s attacks on the judge.
“The judges that I know work hard and try to apply the rules of law to the facts at hand,” Foust said. “I think it’s unfortunate that the leader of the executive branch has so little respect for the third branch of government. People who work for the government should be respectful of our fellow branches of government.”
Lester Pines, an attorney representing labor unions in the Act 10 case, said that although he did not hold Gov. Walker responsible for the “racist sentiments” of callers and letter writers, he argued that Walker should be accountable for “his demagogic and unrelenting attack on the integrity of the judiciary.”
Cullen Werwie, a Walker spokesman, said that the governor still stood by Act 10 as a constitutional law, and that he was not responsible for the negative correspondence sent to Judge Colas.No comments
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker on Thursday launched a petition drive critical of Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas. Judge Colas recently ruled that many of Walker’s restrictions on collective bargaining rights for public workers were unconstitutional.
In response, Walker’s petition labeled Judge Colas an “activist judge” who “chose to put politics ahead of your votes by striking down Governor Walker’s good government budget reforms,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports. The petition continues:
“When the big special interests lose at the ballot box they turn to activist judges to legislate from the bench. The fight to defend the Wisconsin taxpayer is not over, and you have another chance to make your voice heard loud and clear. Please sign this petition today to stand with Governor Walker and his reforms that are working for Wisconsin families.”
The Sentinel also pointed out that Walker’s petition not only targets his supporters, but it also requires signers to note their email addresses and zip codes, which his campaign could use for fundraising purposes.
Lester Pines, an attorney for the union that had sued Walker, accused the governor of trashing the judicial system. Pines wrote in an email to the Sentinel, “Scott Walker should encourage people to respect the judiciary.” He continued, “Instead, just so he can raise money and gin up his base, he repeats the canard judges act politically rather than honestly interpreting the law.”
One Wisconsin Now, a progressive advocacy group, reacted with a counter petition that could also give it a fundraising boost. A part of the petition stated: “Scott Walker attacked [Judge Colas's] integrity. Now Walker has launched another attack and he’s trying to get as many names as possible to say that Wisconsin is on his side.”No comments
A Des Moines Register opinion piece criticized a continuing campaign to remove the Iowa Supreme Court justices who unanimously, in Varnum v. Brien, permitted same-sex people to marry. Three justices did not survive a retention vote in 2010, and this year there are calls to remove a fourth, Justice David Wiggins.
Joan Bolin, a corporate insurance lawyer and a former Republican candidate for Iowa state treasurer in 1998, described the campaign against the justices as “loaded with fear-mongering.” Iowans are being told, she wrote, “that due to the Varnum decision…the sanctity of heterosexual marriage is no longer protected and preserved.”
Bolin, a supporter of extending civil rights to same-sex people who marry, also criticized the Iowa Republican Party chairman’s reaction to the Varnum decision:
“The Republican chairman called the Supreme Court justices ‘political bureaucrats’ even though they do not belong to an administrative agency or executive bureau. He said that the justices were ‘arrogantly and deceitfully instituting law’ and that they ‘disregard years of legal precedent’ and ‘re-write history.’ Yet he offered no insight, record or factual information in support of his allegations.”
Far from “disregarding the law” and allowing “personal views to influence their decisions,” Bolin wrote, the Iowa justices based their decision on “the force of law.”
She emphasized that the justices addressed a narrow issue, whether denying civil rights to homosexuals and not to heterosexuals violates the Iowa Constitution. The justices determined “‘yes,'” which was a unanimous decision and in Bolin’s view, a “humbl[e] and honest review [of] the Iowa Constitution.” To learn more about the latest ouster drive, see Gavel Grab.