From "How Did State Supreme Court Races Get So Expensive?/Wisconsin's is only the latest example" (FiveThirtyEight).
The Supreme Court is not "delegating major legal questions to the states." The delegating is done by the Constitution, and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Court is merely — officially — only figuring out what questions are determined by federal law and declining to exercise power it doesn't have. That's either judicial restraint or judicial activism, depending on some mysterious blend of your political predilections, credulity, and hopes and dreams.
Posts
35 comments:
Republicans had tremendous success in gubernatorial and state-legislative elections, but the laws they passed still encountered obstacles in state courts. As a result, outside groups like the Republican State Leadership Committee started spending serious money on judicial elections....
What is being described is the response of Republicans to efforts that Democrats had already been making, but it is made to seem as if the Republicans started it. The reason Republicans encountered obstacles at the state courts is because the Democrats largely controlled them.
When Scott Walker was elected Gov of WI in 2010 and introduced Act 10 reforms, the left went CRAZY. The recall (which failed), and the open demand to elect Joanne Kloppenburg to the Supreme Court to overturn what the duly elected Governor and Legislature enacted. Liberals don't really believe in democracy. They was powerful activist judges to control executive and legislative branches when occupied by Republicans.
Funny thing was Kloppenburg lost, and Walker survived the recall, and was re0elected in 2014. Now Wisconsin liberals want Janet Protasiewicz to to the same. She's not even hiding her intentions to rule Act 10 "unconstitutional" an redraw/gerrymander the legislative maps to snuff out the power of Wisconsin's rural areas, and Waukesha and Washington Counties.
Madison WI throws a temper tantrum anytime they can't control everyone in the state. And once they get control, the ignore Milwaukee's violence, and even let cities like Kenosha burn. Crazytown.
Democrats in OR and WA have effectively nullified judicial elections. Judges are elected here, but most elections are unopposed. The Democrats have set it up so that a judge will resign after the filing period has closed or in a middle of a term. Then the governor will appoint someone to fill that seat, effectively making the appointee the incumbent when election time rolls around. Most lawyers will not run against an incumbent judge for fear of getting screwed by the challenged judge in the courtroom.
All of the supreme court judges in OR and WA were appointed by Dem governors. There is no balance on the court.
This power of the governors should be stripped out of the state's constitutions to restore competetive judicial elections.
I write in "REJECT" for all unopposed judicial elections.
Election of state judges at any level (trial or appellate) is mystifying to me. It is also ripe for all sorts of abuse.
In Nebraska, the governor appoints all the judges. The judges then stand for retention elections.
I can't imagine appearing at a hearing knowing that my attorney adversary had made big campaign contributions to the judge deciding the case.
Thank GOD that in Spring 2020 the WI Supreme Court was still a 5-4 solid conservative majority or Tony Evers would have perpetually locked down Wisconsin over bullshit COVID just like Pritzker did to Illinois.
Wisconsin was locked down for 60 days and the WI Supreme court said rightfully said to the Gov and his mediocre health administrators "By law you get 60 days of power. Then you need approval from the legislature".
I remember the night of the decision. The Tavern League sent out a message for all Wisconsin Bars and Taverns to open up immediately. I went up to the Sussex Bowl and met some cousins. As I was pulling in, people were honking their horns pulling into the parking lot. By the time I walked into the bar in the bowling alley there were already old ladies playing video poker and drinking brandy old fashioned.
That's what makes Wisconsin great. After that we got perpetually fucked by RINO Brian Hagedorn, but at least we escaped the lockdowns. Well...in Waukesha County anyway.
I hope a bunch of people mail FiveThirtyEight printed out copies of the Constitution with the Tenth Amendment highlighted.
The Supreme Court is not "delegating major legal questions to the states." The delegating is done by the Constitution
Note also that judges doing the left's bidding by striking down laws conservatives won at the ballot box is seen as the normal state of affairs. The courts didn't become political ("things changed in the early 2010s. 'There was a recognition, especially on the right...") until conservatives noticed that activist courts make judicial influence too important to ignore.
The Civil War ended the 10th Amendment. The direct election of Senators denied states their representation in Congress. The Progressive Movement was aimed at removing all states' rights. Now, the Soros types are running elections like the one last year in Republican Arizona.
Maybe if Judges judged lawsuits, instead of Making laws, the elections wouldn't be so expensive
The Supreme Court is not "delegating major legal questions to the states." The delegating is done by the Constitution, and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
You give 'em hell, Professor!
I gotta admit, the reporter at 538 did phrase that in what could charitably stated as an in-artful fashion.
Inexplicable isn't it that on SCOTUS issues like swing votes and such are almost always on the so-called conservative side? On the lefty side, however, there is rarely unpredictability except when the Wise Latina is completely over the top. Otherwise, they are unanimous for their political template. The Constitution? Not so much.
The massive expenditures are about promoting unanimity for the template throughout the judiciary in support of a party that is abandoning the rule of law with particular inattention to Amendments 1, 2, 4, 8 and 14.
We need to cut throught the Bullshit. The R's were using the State legislatures to draw maps that favored them in congressional races. The D's did what they always do, they went to the Leftwing Federal judges and got them to overturn them. And even draw Pro-D maps. The SCOTUS, when enough R judges got on the court, finally said "We tired of this. Federal judges stop drawing up election maps".
So, the Democrats have now gone to their backup plan: Using the State Supreme Courts. In Pennyslvannia, they redrew the map with a narrow one vote margin. And that one vote was provided a Supreme Court Judge - a liberal D - who before he was elected - promised on his mothers grae that he would NEVER overturn a Legislature drawn map.
And the leftwing billionaires and millionaires are now pouring money into State Judge races. Its all about the D's constantly scheming and tryng to rig the rules to get their majority back in Congress. The R's? They don't seem to care. Do they ever?
Living in a state where the Governor nominates the state surpreme Judges or provides them with 20 year terms or lifetime terms is INSANITY. You need elections to keep these clown in check. I'm always astounded how people will just accept this state judicial tyranny (like imposing a state income tax) and do nothing about it.
Creepy porn judge advocate, Ben Wikler gave us Brett Blomme as a judge.
Now he wants to decide who controls our state Supreme Court.
This is where we are and what's at stake...
Are they not teaching The Constitution in schools?
Pritzker in Illinois gave more than two million to Dem Supremes, then passed and signed No Cash Bail law followed by an extreme anti-gun bill. Now both bills are before the court, guess which way the judges will vote?
I still am unclear on where a Wisconsin Supreme Court gains the authority to draw their own maps, regardless of what side controls. The Constitution gives that authority to the legislature, in the form of passing a law that is signed or vetoed by the Governor. If the court, through whatever crazy reason they dream up, decides the maps are not constitutional, shouldn’t they have to send them back to the legislature?
Also, if the Wisconsin Supreme Court decides that district lines have to be drawn to ensure that the legislature as a whole reflects the partisan makeup of the state as a whole, as opposed to individual districts, are we really sure that the US Supreme Court won’t absolutely will stay out? Couldn’t they intervene to say “you’ve gone too far”?
I remember being shocked in my Federal Jurisdiction class to learn from my textbook authors (Hart and Wechsler), that federal power was deemed merely "interstitial", and that the foundation of sovereignty supposedly resided in state government. Of course, the supremacy clause, the 14th Amendment, the expansive readings of "necessary and proper" and the commerce clause, as well as overuse of executive orders, broad delegations to administrative agencies, and federal exclusivity in currency and foreign relations, have made what was once only interstitial into the default for the exercise of power.
Centralization of power advantages the elite. Consider NY state. The NYC metropolitan region runs everything, and places like Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Schenectady, Utica, and Binghamton are merely afterthoughts, which is why they are husks of their formerly vibrant selves. Federalism fosters the sense that Nebraska is running itself.
So according to Douglas Keith of the Brennan Center, the increase in focus and money on state supreme court elections began with the Right?
From their website:
"The Brennan Center is fighting back against election deniers, dark money in politics, and the myth of voter fraud..."
Is this a likely source of honest, unbiased commentary?
The article says that "outside groups like the Republican State Leadership Committee started spending serious money on judicial elections...."
In this election cycle, the liberal candidate raised $2.2 million to $411k by the conservative candidate; the liberal candidate spent $1.1 million on adds leading up to the primaries and has booked at least $8 million in adds leading up to the run-off election. According to a NYT article from yesterday, "Justice Kelly’s campaign has been outspent by a staggering margin on television since the Feb. 21 primary: $9.1 million to nothing."
But yeah, the republicans are the ones driving up election costs.
Maybe this is why many people now think of judges as more like partisan political legislators, and therefore it is OK to protest against them.
I think most of the static around state supreme courts has to do with public schools. The state courts are altering the legal landscape for school choice, giving parents options and exposing public schools for the mess that they are. For their part, the capital "D" Democrats see school choice as a challenge to their power and ability to indoctrinate/transition children. It's so sad.
In few circumstances does backroom politics insinuate itself more surely than in the executive appointments of judicial positions.
It's definitely not true that this only started in the last decade or so. Ohio used to have incredibly fierce political battles over Supreme Court elections no later than the mid-1980s (and maybe further back than that).
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Nice how “We the people” are relegated to the bottom of the food chain.
For Wokeism sake Althouse is… compelled to add “hopes and dreams”.
The democratic/dictatorial duality. There is no hierarchy like a nationwide injunction, perhaps nationwide insurrections... or the "burden" gets scalped, recycled, sequestered.
The court race in Wisconsin is worse than a presidential race this year. I'm shocked by the never-ending parade of negative, false, and vile ads I'm seeing and hearing. And most of the ads focus on issues that the Supreme Court has (or should have) nothing to do with. The spending disparity noted above will, I'm afraid, lead to the liberals election. She has already said she'll legislate from the bench. So there's reason to be extremely pessimistic about Wisconsin's future.
Total campaign spending for the 2022 election cycle was about $16.7 billion dollars. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/03/2022-midterm-election-spending-set-to-break-record.html
According to the linked 538 article,2020 campaign spending on state supreme court contests was $114 million, which is about .07 percent of the 2022 overall figure. Is the court spending figure really excessive?
Well it became obvious that there were democrat and republican judges. Notwithstanding Speaker Roberts naivete.
"Until about a decade ago, though, elections for state supreme courts were usually only the province of wonky election nerds and those in the legal profession."
"But things changed in the early 2010s.
So this moron never heard of Rose Bird?
Tag; "Experts who aren't"
As a result, outside groups like the Republican State Leadership Committee started spending serious money on judicial elections
As opposed to "inside" groups like the ABA, the ACLU, etc, who'd been doing it all along, and are very upset that the other side is getting into the game
The Supreme Court is not "delegating major legal questions to the states." The delegating is done by the Constitution
Yes, but the core position of the Left is "we ignore whatever is actually in the written US Consititon."
That's why Roe was an inviolable right, but "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means you can completely prevent people from keeping and / or bearing arms
The Court is merely — officially — only figuring out what questions are determined by federal law and declining to exercise power it doesn't have. That's either judicial restraint or judicial activism, depending on some mysterious blend of your political predilections, credulity, and hopes and dreams.
It's judicial restraint if you're honest, and "judicial activism" if you're a left wing liar
Dave Begley said...
Election of state judges at any level (trial or appellate) is mystifying to me. It is also ripe for all sorts of abuse.
Whereas having them appointed by political figures has no abuse at all?
Or having them picked by "non-partisan" "experts" (like the ABA)? That's totally without any sort of abuse?
Seriously Dave?
Becuase the judiciary is increasing a very hard to influence legislature (I mean, the NV Supreme Court ruling that an amendment to state constitution was unconstitutional a few years back? So there is NO way to alter the education rules?)
A decade or so? Does nobody remember recalling Rose Bird? It happened in 1986, so maybe nobody who's willing to put up with media pay scales was born then.
Post a Comment