Next Tuesday, Floridians will get a chance to vote on “merit retention” of three (of the seven) justices of the Florida Supreme Court: R. Fred Lewis, Barbara Pariente, and Peggy Quince. That much is routine – every justice comes up on the ballot for merit-retention every 6 years; the voters simply vote “YES” or “NO” on whether the justice should be retained in office.
However, this year, Governor Rick Scott (R), the GOP and RW groups are mounting a campaign to unseat these justices, all of whom were appointed by the late Governor Lawton Chiles (D), as being to liberal/activist. See here, here, and here:
See here for a chart of controversial decisions by the justices in question.
On the same ballot, BTW, will be a proposed constitutional amendment, Amendment 5 (sponsored by a Republican state legislator), intended to give the (currently Pub-controlled) legislature increased control over the judicial branch.
If you vote in Florida, vote “YES” on retention and “NO” on Amendment 5! Preserve the political independence of the judicial branch!
Vote “No” on retention and vote 'No" on amendment 5. Campaigning against these judges for bad decisions isn’t a violation of their “political independence” or any such nonsense. They were political appointments from the beginning and their continuance in office is subject to a majority vote. Folks should be allowed to voice their opinion for or against their continuation.
Amendment 5 on the other hand seems like an overreach.
Look, the merit-retention system was put in place in the 1970s to provide a way for voters to remove corrupt justices. This goes way beyond. Former Governor Charlie Crist (R) writes:
Not to mention the laughably named Freedom of Religion amendment up for vote. Who wouldn’t want freedom of religion? Actually, it would allow public dollars for religious funding.
…and this is why direct democracy and judicial elections are bad ideas. Oh, I know you’re all about it, and yet here you are hoping that the people, who you trust with dogged faith (evidenced by a myriad of other threads), don’t make a decision that you think is bad. Where’s that unshakeable faith now?
People get the government they want, and when you entrust the largely indifferent electorate to make decisions of this magnitude you get the government you deserve.
Oh, so you’ll be OK with the results if the Republican initiatives succeed? They’re just working the system, after all.
The OP, as Bricker also observed, amounts to criticism of the Republicans for operating under the system that’s been created, not surprisingly to their advantage (imagine that!), which amounts to criticism of the system itself otherwise the Republicans would never be able to corrupt it so easily. Yet you still claim that you’re in favor of it.
You still don’t see the flaw? If you don’t, it’s because you don’t want to.
Oh, and you can leave your faux confusion at the door. You do it in every thread, and you understand completely what we’re saying.
I don’t say I’m in favor of it, either; the existence of the merit-retention system is not at issue here. I’m saying the Pubs/RWs/corporate interests are abusing it. See post #3 – Gov. Crist expresses my sentiments exactly. And he is not demanding the system be abolished.
Wow. Deep in the heart of silly season, I see. The OP expresses his political opinion that voters ought not toss out Supreme Court Justices based on political preference.
This is liberal hypocrisy? If so, I’ll take two helpings.
I’ll be very happy when everyone gets slightly more sane on Nov. 25th (when the election is finally decided by the Supreme Court).