Is Rick Scott Being Pressured to Appoint Activist Judges?

By: Eric Giunta | Posted: March 7, 2013 3:55 AM
Alan Forst and Clarence Thomas

Judicial candidate Alan Forst with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

A left-wing group founded last year to campaign for the retention of three Florida Supreme Court justices has teamed up with liberal editorializers to slam the qualifications of a conservative jurist being considered for a judgeship by Gov. Rick Scott.

And one prominent legal insider says it's downright hypocritical.

The candidate in question is Alan Forst, one of six being considered for an appointment to the Florida 4th District Court of Appeal. The case against him, according to Palm Beach Post editor Randy Schultz and liberal activist group Democracy at Stake? Forst has no trial court experience, and submitted, as part of his 108-page application to the Judicial Nominating Commission, a cover letter containing a paragraph outlining his “conservative credentials.”

Those “credentials” include his active involvement in the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, a legal fellowship and debate society that promotes an originalist jurisprudence, and some volunteer work he did for a pro-Ronald Reagan PAC back in 1981, when he was 17 years old.

(A copy of Forst's application, obtained from the Governor's Office of Open Government, is attached to this article.)

Democracy at Stake, whose founder and president is former state Sen. Alex Villalobos, was founded in 2012 to support the ballot retention of three Florida Supreme Court justices – Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis, and Peggy Quince – who have been accused by critics of being left-wing “judicial activists” -- i.e., of not interpreting relevant law according to its original public meaning. The organization has frequently lambasted conservative grassroots organizations and state Republicans for “politicizing” the judicial appointment and retention process.

The seat Forst is seeking is being vacated by Pariente's husband, Judge Fred Hazouri.

Democracy at Stake submitted this statement to the Tampa Bay Times: "The JNC, dominated by a majority of partisan gubernatorial appointees, chose to include applicants with little or no judicial experience, while passing over applicants with years of demonstrated ability serving on the trial court bench.”

There's no telling whether or how this public criticism will influence Scott's final decision, given his recent gravitation toward the political center; his office did not return requests for comment before this article went to press.

One former high-ranking government attorney told Sunshine State News, on background, that Democracy at Stake's opposition to Forst's nomination is hypocritical on several levels. For starters, none of the three justices supported by the organization in the last election had any judicial experience before they were appointed to an appeals court, and Lewis didn't have any judicial experience when he was appointed to the Supreme Court by Gov. Lawton Chiles in 1998.

Indeed, none of the last five chief justices of the Florida Supreme Court had ever served as trial court judges, eight of the nine current U.S. Supreme Court justices had never served as trial court judges before being appointed to a federal appeals court, and Justice Elena Kagan had no judicial experience at all before her appointment to the high court by President Obama in 2010.

Democracy at Stake did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

“It strikes me as hypocritical for this group to have been decrying any political influence on the judicial process and now organizing to actively oppose a nominee that was nominated by a judicial nominating commission,” the source told SSN.

Forst, who declined to comment for this story, is the chairman of the state Re-Employment Assistance Appeals Commission, having been appointed to the position three times, twice by former Gov. Jeb Bush and once by Gov. Charlie Crist. The Commission issues orders adjudicating appeals from hearing officer decisions.

Previously, Forst was a litigator in Stuart and at the U.S. Department of Commerce, following 10 years as legal counsel to the chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the directors of Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs and Wage and Hour Administration, and the vice chair of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. In each position, Forst assisted in the appellate functions in each of these agencies.

Forst's references include prominent trial attorneys.

The source contacted by SSN insists he has no dog in this fight, his only interest being to defend the professional reputation of a colleague.

“Forst has an extremely deep legal background, and has practiced in the federal court system, practiced in private practice in the state of Florida, and his resume compares to several members of our district courts of appeal and our Supreme Court who are currently serving,” he explained. “In fact, it compares favorably.”

Reach Eric Giunta at egiunta@sunshinestatenews.com or at (954) 235-9116.

Comments (3)

1:59PM MAR 8TH 2013
so why is conservative activist judge any better than a liberal activist judge. conservative judges are supposed to be the ones that follow the constitution when in fact they pursue simply their view of the constitution. just more politics. more citizens united perhaps ! it's all a power grab by whomever can get it.
10:44AM MAR 7TH 2013
I'll believe in restricting "judicial activists” on the courts when groups like the Federalist Society and Tea Party groups start demanding the removal of judges like Justice Scalia after his tirades against overwhelmingly congressionally passed legislation like the Voting Rights Act because he personally feels that Congress can't do its job without being intimidation by public pressure . . . .where did our founding fathers declare that part of their "originalist jurisprudence" intended role for the Supreme Court . . . . .

Pathetic partisan hypocrites . . . .
9:05PM MAR 7TH 2013
Answer: When our founding fathers established 3 co-equal branches of government and a system of checks and balances. Sometimes we need the courts to protect us from ourselves. Remember: No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.

Leave a Comment on This Story

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.