Attack on the independent judiciary

[cannon_fodder]

In a previous thread (Gay marriage discussion) I lamented that with the upholding of the US Constitution by an independent judiciary and the State Supreme Court consistently upholding the state constitution and striking down blatantly unconstitutional laws (repeatedly) - that it was anticipated that the legislature would try to gain control or at least political influence over the judiciary.  A shiny new bill seeks to accomplish this task:

HB3380 creates "The Board of Judicial Performance Evaluation"
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20INT/hB/HB3380%20INT.PDF

Not too Orwellian is it? 

It creates a new agency which will have 9 voting members, 3 appointed each by the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the Oklahoma House.  The only requirement for the members is that they cannot be lawyers or members of the judiciary (read:  no legal training).  The idea is to have these 9 people, who by law have little or no legal knowledge, evaluate the "performance" judges in the State and give an opinion as to whether they should retain office.

The Board on Judicial Performance Evaluation shall conduct an evaluation of each Justice of the Supreme Court, each Judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and each Judge of the Court of Civil Appeals whose term is to expire and who must stand for retention election.

So basically, political appointees of the legislature will "evaluate" your rulings, presumably not on the legal merits of the ruling, and tell voters whether you are a good judge and should retain the post.  But the judiciary will remain 100% independent and in no way should they feel political pressure to base legal decision the prospect of being judged by a political committee.  Or... in the alternative, the panel represents the legislature trying to find a legal way of controlling that pesky branch of government that follows the constitution(s).

The Journal Record has a great article on the topic:
http://journalrecord.com/2014/01/27/editorial-giant-steps-backward-opinion/
or
http://journalrecord.com/2014/01/27/editorial-giant-steps-backward-opinion/#.Uue4Z6tOUlI.facebook

That means nine people with no legal training could be critiquing the quality of legal decisions throughout the state, and they would wield a sizable sword.
House Bill 3380 would create a human resources department run by the Legislature to oversee the judiciary. Not only is it duplicitous of the smaller-government-is-better Shannon to create a new, unnecessary agency complete with support staff, it takes the philosophy of a constitutional democracy back more than 300 years and spits on Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

The notion of judicial independence goes back to 1701's Act of Settlement in England, and French philosopher Montesquieu, who greatly influenced Alexander Hamilton and other Founding Fathers. An independent judiciary was critical to the Constitution's framers. It remains critical to a free society.

In recent months, China's top court and security chief have urged the Communist Party to move toward true judicial independence amid a wave of political reform. What a tragedy it would be for the Legislature to move Oklahomans the opposite direction.
Read more: http://journalrecord.com/2014/01/27/editorial-giant-steps-backward-opinion/#ixzz2riX1Z1NT

[Townsend]

Wow.

So how will this be argued in court?

[guido911]

It will be ruled unconstitutional. . Not seeing the problem about having no legal training to monitor judges. After all, judges are elected in this state by a legally-uneducated lot. Seriously, what training does T have in evaluating judges? And what training does CF have in being an Oklahoman to lecture you rubes about what's good for ya for that matter? This all sounds more like ol' CF is trying to keep his plaintiff-friendly appellate bench in place. 

[cannon_fodder]

Quick - I cannot attack the merits of the statement, I had better attack the person posting the information.

I have lived in Oklahoma 11 years.  I chose to move here. Chose to stay.  I'm not here merely by default.

But the "get on board with my view or leave" bandwagon is pathetic at the national and local levels.

If by "plaintiff friendly" you mean one that upholds the constitution, equity, and justice - then by all means.  But my view is also held by my defense attorney friends and the Oklahoma Bar Association... so it doesn't really seem to be a Plaintiff/Defendant issue.  Get a Defense contract for me, I'd be happy to split my practice.

[Townsend]

It will be ruled unconstitutional. . Not seeing the problem about having no legal training to monitor judges. After all, judges are elected in this state by a legally-uneducated lot. Seriously, what training does T have in evaluating judges? And what training does CF have in being an Oklahoman to lecture you rubes about what's good for ya for that matter? This all sounds more like ol' CF is trying to keep his plaintiff-friendly appellate bench in place. 

How would it help?  How would this bill make things better?

[guido911]

But the "get on board with my view or leave" bandwagon is pathetic at the national and local levels.

Nope. Just calling you a carpetbagger. That's it. Coming down from the north to make a living off of us backwards buffoons in this state that voted 76% in favor of a statute (which I do not even care about) that 1 unelected guy invalidated. That's democracy for ya, which is what you are currently railing against. And keep this argument between the ditches. Judge Kern, who handed down that decision, would not even be subject to the statute that has you all wadded up. It would apply to only state court justices, making the premise of your point faulty

And I will remember how "independent" our judiciary is when a ruling you disagree with comes down.

[guido911]

How would it help?  How would this bill make things better?

No idea because I only have a proposed bill to look at. But the argument here is that citizen commissions are wrong, because it threatens the independence of the judicial branch. Ask yourself a question, how many times have you heard about allegations of judicial misconduct, judges making horrible rulings, etc. Except for the notorious cases, you don't. Heck, I am in this business and I don't hear anything. A little sunshine on our government cannot be that bad.

[Townsend]

No idea because I only have a proposed bill to look at. But the argument here is that citizen commissions are wrong, because it threatens the independence of the judicial branch. Ask yourself a question, how many times have you heard about allegations of judicial misconduct, judges making horrible rulings, etc. Except for the notorious cases, you don't. Heck, I am in this business and I don't hear anything. A little sunshine on our government cannot be that bad.

OK, based on the history of Oklahoma's legislative branch, do you think this bill will be helpful to anyone but the legislative branch and the people who paid/is paying their way?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Nope. Just calling you a carpetbagger. That's it. Coming down from the north to make a living off of us backwards buffoons in this state that voted 76% in favor of a statute (which I do not even care about) that 1 unelected guy invalidated. That's democracy for ya, which is what you are currently railing against. And keep this argument between the ditches. Judge Kern, who handed down that decision, would not even be subject to the statute that has you all wadded up. It would apply to only state court justices, making the premise of your point faulty

And I will remember how "independent" our judiciary is when a ruling you disagree with comes down.

Gee...being a lawyer, I would have thought you of all people would understand that we are not a democracy, but a republic!  Don't they mention that in law school somewhere/sometime??

[heironymouspasparagus]

OK, based on the history of Oklahoma's legislative branch, do you think this bill will be helpful to anyone but the legislative branch and the people who paid/is paying their way?

Another political patronage ploy to let some "appointed" (annointed?) person choose.

[Townsend]

Nope. Just calling you a carpetbagger. That's it. Coming down from the north to make a living off of us backwards buffoons in this state that voted 76% in favor of a statute (which I do not even care about) that 1 unelected guy invalidated. That's democracy for ya, which is what you are currently railing against. And keep this argument between the ditches. Judge Kern, who handed down that decision, would not even be subject to the statute that has you all wadded up. It would apply to only state court justices, making the premise of your point faulty

And I will remember how "independent" our judiciary is when a ruling you disagree with comes down.

A judge found unconstitutional thereby protecting minority rights from majority rule.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I have lived in Oklahoma 11 years.  I chose to move here. Chose to stay.  I'm not here merely by default.

But the "get on board with my view or leave" bandwagon is pathetic at the national and local levels.

If by "plaintiff friendly" you mean one that upholds the constitution, equity, and justice - then by all means.  But my view is also held by my defense attorney friends and the Oklahoma Bar Association... so it doesn't really seem to be a Plaintiff/Defendant issue.  Get a Defense contract for me, I'd be happy to split my practice.

Chose to stay....wow!!   I mean,....wow!

Good that you did.


Used to be a bumper sticker in the 60's that said, "America, Love it or Leave it".  The counterculture version I liked was, "America, Change it or Lose it".

[Conan71]

Nope. Just calling you a carpetbagger. That's it. Coming down from the north to make a living off of us backwards buffoons in this state that voted 76% in favor of a statute (which I do not even care about) that 1 unelected guy invalidated. That's democracy for ya, which is what you are currently railing against. And keep this argument between the ditches. Judge Kern, who handed down that decision, would not even be subject to the statute that has you all wadded up. It would apply to only state court justices, making the premise of your point faulty

And I will remember how "independent" our judiciary is when a ruling you disagree with comes down.

Now wait a second there, Mr. Illinois...

[guido911]

Now wait a second there, Mr. Illinois...

You get my point. I have tried to assimilate (I'm a Borg, take up causes unique to the religious institutions and views of this state's citizens. Am I tough on some Okies, yep. But the gist of my message is that this is a Bible belt state, and its people for better or worse are Christian people. I acknowledge that and that's why I stay.

[guido911]

OK, based on the history of Oklahoma's legislative branch, do you think this bill will be helpful to anyone but the legislative branch and the people who paid/is paying their way?

Again, no idea. Better thought, what's the problem with a group commenting on the judiciary? This judiciary gets lauded for its "standing up" to right wing nutjobs pushing religious dogma masked as policy/law. Correct? Many in here don't like what this legislature is doing, but most in this state apparently favor issues such as tort reform, comp reform, and even opposing gay marriage. But look at what our independent judiciary is doing in large part that gets some folks all hot and bothered. Finding passed laws unconstitutional not on substance, but on the "single subject rule"/log rolling. That's right, our terrific appellate judiciary is reduced to grammar police. That's the aggrieved side's weapon to undo the will of the people in certain cases. 

I invite anyone in here to direct me to their favorite, well reasoned/written opinion issued by our state courts. I am interested in knowing what makes an impression on you.