Columns
Merit Retention Exposes Warts on the Face of Florida's Legal System
Around the State
Wait a minute here. This is an election and this is America.
Last time I looked, the names of the three Florida Supreme Court justices -- whom the legal system guards like sacred Vatican treasures -- are right there, plain as day, on the 2012 Florida ballot.
Voters will be asked to decide for or against retaining these justices based on their merits. So, good for the Republican Party or anybody else in this democratic republic who gets out there in the wide-open, who wants to participate full-cry in the election process and call attention to the justices' or any other candidate's record.
For Lord's sake, Floridians only get a say in their high court once every six years. The GOP has nothing to apologize for.
For years -- decades, really -- voters didn't have a clue who the judges and justices on the ballot were. Retention? What's that? More important, who's that? Justices had about as much name recognition as trustees for the regional drainage district.
It wasn't until 2010, after the Florida Supreme Court rejected a ballot initiative aimed at sparing the state from a key provision in the federal health care overhaul, that the tea party came along looking for vengeance. Conservatives and teas took a close look at the court's performance, didn't like the left-leaning activism they saw, and took it out on the two justices up for retention, Jorge Labarga and James Perry.
True, both men won, but it was no slam dunk. Imagine the justices' surprise to find out they don't necessarily have the job for life.
Now merit retention isn't the speck on the hillside anymore. It's in plain view, as ready for judgment as a new tattoo.
At this moment we have public-sector unions with their pension pending before the state Supreme Court, coming out in favor of retaining the very justices who will decide the case. Does anybody see anything wrong with this picture?
We have attorneys terrified of speaking on the record about the demerits of the three justices on the ballot. Why? Because they fear the retribution of the Florida Bar.
"I may agree that Justices (Barbara) Pariente, (R. Fred) Lewis and (Peggy A.) Quince are screaming lefties, but if I say so publicly, my career ends here," said a Tallahassee attorney who spoke on such deep background, he wouldn't put his comments in an email. "I still have dreams of getting a judicial appointment. I'm going to need the recommendation of my peers. Plus, I'm not going to help my clients by taking on the judiciary and the Florida Bar."
Meanwhile, the legal community in the Sunshine State, with the Democrats and mainstream media in tow, circle their wagons around the three justices. They call themselves victims -- "we're the good guys" -- adopt a friends-only interview policy, and cobble together $1 million to keep the justices in their chairs and "defend" what they say is "judicial independence."
Merit retention -- don't think for one minute there isn't a sinister side of the beast.
Reach Nancy Smith at nsmith@sunshinestatenews.com or at (850) 727-0859.
Comments (12)
The law is not a popularity contest, and appellate court opinions cannot depend on which way the political winds are blowing. A lifetime appointment gave Chief Justice Roberts the ability to make a decision on the Affordable Care Act that he felt was correct, notwithstanding its unpopularity with certain political groups. If the objective of merit retention is to remove justices with whom we disagree, it would be a travesty. And people need to remember that if our country and state is ideologically split in half, the consistent, impartial decisions of our courts are even more important. Once the focus turns away from the rule of law, we are adrift. These justices are intelligent, dedicated, impartial, and deserving of retention. Vote yes.
He is also known for his bizarre filings to the Florida Bar, including challenging the constitutionality of the Florida Bar itself in 1993.[5] Later the Florida Supreme Court would describe his filings as "repetitive, frivolous and insulting to the integrity of the court".[6] On March 20, 2008, the Florida Supreme Court imposed sanctions on Thompson, requiring that any of his future filings in the court be signed by a member of the Florida Bar other than himself.[7]
In July 2008, Thompson was permanently disbarred by the Florida Supreme Court for inappropriate conduct, including making false statements to tribunals and disparaging and humiliating litigants.[8][9]
These certifications are utterly false.
The three Justices lied about this in order to trigger the Florida law that allows them, in the face of opposition, to raise campaign monies to promote their retentions.
All monies raised, now in excess of $1 million, by these three Justices have been illegally raised, in violation of state law.
This is why I have filed formal, sworn complaints with the Judicial Qualifications Commission about this unethical, illegal, lying conduct.
Further, a complaint must and will be filed with the Secretary of State to enjoin the expenditure of these funds by the three Justices and to remove them from the ballot, if required.
These two remedies were endorsed as viable by Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis who appropriately dismissed the wrongheaded lawsuit by Southeastern Legal Foundation. The Secretary of State and the JQC have jurisdiction to remedy this illegal conduct by these Justices. The courts do not.
This scofflaw activity by Justices Pariente, Quince, and Lewis is just the latest partisan, dishonest conduct by three jurists who think you work for them, not the other way around.
Jack Thompson, JD, MA, Miami FL 305-666-4366
amendmentone@comcast.net
Pathetic.
A good example is their ham-fisted drive to disenfranchise thousands of (Democratic) voters to prevent non-existent voter fraud at polling places, while actively pursuing a program of voter fraud in the realm of mail-in ballots. Fortunately they got their hands caught in the cookie jar this time and have come out looking like what they are - hypocrites.
The very reason that the Supreme Court justices are appointed is to isolate them from the whims and fancies of a fickle electorate that will react to just such tactics that the GOP is now exhibiting. The reason for "merit retention" elections is to remove justices that have shown to be unfit for the job. The idea that the decisions of these three justices are "tantamount to criminal and treason" is laughable. The real reason for this push to remove them from the court is blatantly obvious: Their rulings are too progressive for the Tea Party - pure and simple!
Vote "YES" to retain Justices Lewis, Pariente and Quince! They have proven that they deserve your support!
Vote no on the retention of each of these Justices Pariente, Quince, and Lewis.
Beyond the pale, crack-pot certified statements.
Leave a Comment on This Story