Judicial Convention Defense: Spitzer Has Nothing to Do With It
(Judicial candidates currently get the endorsement of a major party not by running in primaries, but in judicial conventions. More on the initial case here.)
In addition to making it a big day for the Brennan Center, this should be good news for Eliot Spitzer, who has been pushing for judicial primaries as part of a broader reform agenda that includes non-partisan redistricting and new rules on campaign finance and governmental ethics. A victory on this issue in the Supreme Court would hand Spitzer a crushing victory over the party chairs, whose ability to create judges gives them much of their remaining political leverage and influence.
But an attorney working for one of the defendants, the State Supreme Court Justices Association, said Spitzer's calls change are essentially meaningless.
"It doesn't change anything," said the attorney, Joseph Forstadt. "If the law is established, the governor can call for changes, but our expectation is that matters will be returned to the status quo."
He continued:
"The only public officials, Governor Spitzer and Senator DeFrancisco are the only two public officials who have gone on record in support of primaries for supreme court judges. The State Association of Supreme Court Judges, the bar association, have gone on the record in support of a convention system.
"Michael Cardozza, the city's corporation counsel, went on record in support of convention system as opposed to primaries. That's the key issue."
Is he right? What's going to happen here?
-- Azi Paybarah
This is a victory for those who want to keep the present system. It may be only temporary but we won't know that until the fall (at the soonest)
The write-up on this case is very misleading. The Supreme Court taking up this case is hardly a victory for the Brennan Center or Spitzer. Had the Supreme Court not taken the case it would have been a victory for them since both the District Court and the Court of Appeals held the current system to be unconstitutional. As a result it would have forced party primaries for Supreme Court judges this year unless the legislature was able to enact a replacement system.
The Supreme Court granting cert on the case has breathed new life into the judicial convention system for at least another year and possibly forever if they find the system to be constitutional. In that event the Brennan Center and Governor Spitzer will have to get primaries for Supreme Court party nominations the proper way, through the votes of the people's representatives in the legislature, instead of through judges legislating from the bench.
The Supreme Court wouldn't take the case if it agreed with the federal appeals court on all the constitutional issues this case raised. There is a chance that the lower federal courts may be (at least partly) overturned.
"In addition to making it a big day for the Brennan Center, this should be good news for Eliot Spitzer, who has been pushing for judicial primaries as part of a broader reform agenda that includes non-partisan redistricting and new rules on campaign finance and governmental ethics. A victory on this issue in the Supreme Court would hand Spitzer a crushing victory over the party chairs, whose ability to create judges gives them much of their remaining political leverage and influence."
Are you on crack? Hacks are popping their champaign all over the state. There is no automatic right 0of appeal to the Supreme Court If tey refused to grant cert, the decision would stand, now it may not.
How bout printing a correction?
The article is simply WRONG in many respects. First, it is completely wrong that this is somehow good news for the Brennan Center. The United States Supreme Court must grant permission to hear an appeal from a Circuit Court of Appeals. Since the Second Circuit affirmed Judge Gleeson
The administration of the courts have always been an area of especial interest to the Supreme Court.
A few of the comments imply that SCOTUS accepts cases only to overrule lower court decisions. That's ridiculous. Cases are accepted because of their national significance, the novel legal questions they raise, to clarify disagreements between circuit court decisions, on matters of original juridication, and/or simply because of their peculiar interest to specific justices.
The results thus far may well be overturned (I don't know the views of individual justices on the key issues), but it won't be just because they accepted cert.
5:48, you may have a point, but something tells me that the Brennan Center is going to have significant trouble convincing Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito that it is okay for Federal courts to interfere in a core state power or that the rights granted by the first amendment should be granted.
Make that the rights granted by the first amendement should be "extended."
The logic is simple. If selecting nominees for Supreme Court by convention is unconstitutional than why would selecting Presidential nominees by convention be constitutional? Until the reforms in 1972 it was quite possible for a Presidential nominee to be selected without any primaries at all. The judicial delegates are elected by the registered voters of a party. Do not see what is unconstitutional about that. The Brennan Center should focus on legislative change of the system rather than getting the Courts to jam it down our throats using a bunch of activist judges.
The Supreme Court as presently constituted should see the light on this and leave it to people who are acountable to voters to change the system -- if it even needs to be changed.
One view is Brennan thinks things have to get worse (primaries) before they get better. Certainly they believe in having judges legislate (that's why it's called Brennan). Scandalous primaries will also encourage discussion of public campaign financing and appointment of JSCs, two other Brennan goals. So those who think Brennan did NOT gain by cert may be short-sighted.
That is interesting analysis Jackie but misses the point. The Brennan Center didn't do this for public relations reasons. They want to overturn the system and know that through the Courts is the only way they can do so.
There have been stories about the Courts for years. It is not an issue that the average citizen is going to vote on so it will not cause there to be any real pressure on the elected officials to change it. This is the ballgame for them and they know it. Believe me they are not celebrating.
Public financing is a non-starter since the public generally does not like seeing their tax dollars spent on pollsters and consultants. Appointed judges is an elitists dream, probably why toy store scion Schwarz is in favor of it. Does any rational person think that the bar association will allow any non-Ivy League, non white shoe law firm attorney to become a judge? The system we have now might not be perfect but it allows a broad range of people to have opportunities to get on the bench. The elitists want the bench to be a preserve for their well healed buddies, people who have very little in common with the average citizens who actually appear in the Courts expecting justice.