S.C. Legislative Panel Ditches Conservative Judge
As expected, South Carolina’s legislatively-controlled judicial merit selection commission today ditched the most qualified, most conservative, most pro-business judge from consideration for the next vacancy on the State Supreme Court.
That means lawmakers will now choose between three less-than-conservative options – John Few, Kaye Hearn and Deadra L. Jefferson – when they vote next month to choose a new Supreme Court Justice.
Bruce Williams, the most conservative candidate and the runaway leader in a recent SC Bar evaluation of the candidates, didn’t even make the cut.
Sadly, this isn’t at all surprising coming from a “Republican” legislative majority which two years ago actually elected a poorly-qualified Democrat to the high court – a mistake it is now on the verge of repeating.
Seriously, don’t take our word for it, look at the SC Bar’s rankings of the candidate qualifications as well as the “Reviewing the Records” report from the S.C. Business and Industry Public Education Committee (links below).
If we keep showing competent, conservative judges the door, we shouldn’t be surprised when our legal climate continues to rank among the nation’s unfriendliest.
Of course, lawmakers are exclusively to blame for this sorry state of affairs, because they control every aspect of judicial screening and judicial elections in this backwards state.
WEB EXTRA
Comments
By Facts Please on April 13th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Will:
I have a question regarding your description of Judge Bruce Williams. According to the SC Bar Website, Judge Williams has not been evaluated since he was elected to the Court of Appeals from the Family Court in 2004. His evaluations are based upon his time as a family court judge ONLY. He was never a circuit court judge. My question then is: how do you characterize him as “most pro-business” when family court judges do NOT hear business related cases and he has not been evaluated for his work at the Court of Appeals?
By fitsnews on April 13th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“Facts Please,”
The SC Bar information is just one aspect of the “Reviewing the Records” report published last month by SCBIPEC.
Multiple recent cases are also examined in that report.
You can review the full report (which these “GOP” appointees obviously failed to do) by clicking here:
http://www.scbipec.com/scb/images//reviewing%20the%20records.pdf
-FITS
By StupidShouldHurtMore (SSHM) on April 13th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
@fitsnews,
Really? I’m glad to know that judicial review involved a vetting process in front of a PAC. Stick to the facts Will … not the political propaganda. Judges are to be impartial … not “pro-this” or “anti-that.”
Never finished that civics course, did ya?
- SSHM
By Frank on April 13th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
The problem here is that you have RINO’s such as Senator Jakie Knotts that is on the judicial screening board. This two face jackleg must go and anyone he supports needs to be look at extra carefully. Senator Knotts does not support people unless they repay him favors over and over again.
What has ever happen to the investigation where Senator Jakie Knotts Obstructed Justice in the DHEC criminal investigation in Swansea?
By cgi-bin laden on April 13th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Family court judges always get the shaft. I notice that the other family court judge didn’t make the cut, either.
I’m not a big fan of “judging” the circuit court judges based on the decisions that are appealed. I think we’d get a more accurate idea of their judicial demeanor from examining all their rulings, or a random sample, at the circuit court level.
By the right side on April 13th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Williams was the DEMOCRAT candidate 4 years ago until he became the GOP candidate by convenience. Go check that I know I’m right. Plus< Few has been known as the GOP candidate.
By the right side on April 13th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Williams was the DEM candidate agaist Paula Thomas for C of A. Then, he got religion and became a conservative.
By James the Foot Soldier on April 13th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Stupid: “judges should be impartial” ??
Now THAT’S stupid.
Since they are either elected by the citizenry or appointed by elected officials they will ALWAYS carry a bias to the bench – the trick is divining that bias from a (sometimes meager) case load and screening the David Souters of the world before they inflict damage beyond that which their intellectual capacity can fathom.
By JKPolk on April 13th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
How can Bruce Williams be “most conservative, most pro-business candidate” if he and Kaye Hearn ALWAYS agree? Seriously. They have only disagreed once, in Coakley v. Horace Mann Insurance (http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/COA/3929.htm), with Williams taking the ANTI-business side (and getting reversed by the Supreme Court). Check Westlaw. Check Lexis. They have never disagreed in any other case. So doesn’t that make Hearn the “most conservative, most pro-business candidate?” And since she has been a judge longer and has been chief judge for a decade, doesn’t that also make her more qualified? What is this all about, people? Are we playing a game?
By Not Sayin', Just Sayin' ... on April 13th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Williams was an ambulance chaser when he practiced law, and is not friend of the defense bar in civil or criminal appeals. He might look like the “safe” choice for business interests because he looks like the ultimate country club wasp, but the image is an illusion. Check out his published appellate opinions. None are very liberal except for DeeDee Jefferson — who also an idiot, and none are very conservative, except for the forgotten candidate, Gene Moorehead, who has been on the bench since 1985 (about the time Few finished law school).
By Not Sayin', Just Sayin' ... on April 13th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
I also don’t understand why SC BIPEC says Judge Moorehead never ruled on business cases. Are they not aware that he served as a long-term acting judge on the SC Court of Appeals from 1999-2000, and was on panels that dealt with business issues?
By Laughable on April 13th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Wow Will, the hypocrisy knows no bounds, huh? You and yours jump at every chance to blast the horribly liberal judges of America and point to everything they’ve done as the root of all evil (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) But low and behold, the minute it serves your own (hired) purpose, look who’s calling for judicial activism … from the very pulpit of sanctimony. You get it right? You realize that by calling for more “business-friendly” judges in this state – the tired old buzz word that seems to be driving everything these days in our Grand Old Party – you are actually promoting judicial activism. Because that’s what it is. By definition, any judge that comes into a case with a pre-conceived notion of what he/she should do, based solely on who the parties are, is being … wait for it … activist. But I guess that’s OK calling for it when it serves your (client’s) purpose right, Will? I mean, I’d hate for consideration of experience, judicial knowledge, temperament, and good old-fashioned intelligence to play a role in the selection of our judges, because then we’d all – businesses included – be getting a fair shake.
By Red Bank Bar on April 13th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Bruce Williams did mainly family court work as a practitioner. The most “conservative” judges in the mix are John Few and Deidre Jefferson, who was a family court judge for many years. Both are solicitors in black robes, both equally ready to give a moralizing speech as they screw the defense in every case. Ask the public defenders in either circuit. They’ll tell you Few and Jefferson are the least principled, most opportunistic, heavy-handed sentencers pandering for legislative impact.
John Few is also the biggest adulterous ho-hopper to “grace” the bench since Strom Thurmond was a judge. Few and Carroll Campbell would run a tight race as far as the person who most violated their marriage vows.
Kay Hearn and Gene Moorhead are the most impartial judges.
By Jody on April 14th, 2009 at 12:40 am
The legislature should not elect judges. Period. Nor should judges be popularly elected, because their role is not to represent people but to interpret the law. Period. Judges should be appointed by the executive branch (yes, folks, that does mean the governor), with advice and consent of the Senate. You know — that whole “separation of powers” idea that forms the basis for democracy?
We can hold the CEO of the state accountable for poor judicial appointments, as we do the President of the United States, but we cannot hold an entire legislature accountable. So really, we as citizens have no say in who sits on the bench, nor any recourse if judges are corrupt or incompetent. Which is exactly the way they want it at the Statehouse. They can do anything they want to. Funnel money and power to their families and friends…state contracts, economic development money, judicial appointments, board and commission appointments — you name it. That’s why our state is so poor and so backwards and always will be.
Better hope you don’t end up in a courtroom and on the wrong side of Jakie Knotts or Glenn McConnell at the same time. Good luck with “due process” if you do.
By Dan on April 14th, 2009 at 12:49 am
Hate to say it, Sic, but “Laughable” is right. It is ridiculous that a group puts out a report calling rulings “business friendly.” They are in fact calling for judges to rule their way, which does nothing to fix the broken system that is the cause of all this mess. Remember — it was that logic that started this whole horrible trend when Robert Bork (a brilliant judge) was knocked out for his philosophy. We can’t have it both ways.
What we need is a report documenting trends toward unfair bias on the part of judges, and back it up with some good objective analysis from universally respected legal experts. But don’t rely on a PAC director to consider, or even understand, the nuances of more sophisticated and persuasive arguments. Forget the PAC/lobbyist propaganda, Will. Stick to your own intellect and reasoning. Your arguments against legislative control of our judicial system are much more powerful and dead-on.
By Pete on April 14th, 2009 at 6:25 am
I have heard Hearn speak twice in the past couple of years. Her openings lines generally canonize and offer supreme worship to the Queen Jean Toal. Her praise goes beyond the normal political babble. She LOVES Toal. That is enough for me to judge this woman’s character. It indicates she will only be another lady in waiting as Pleiconas and Kittredge have become.
By Not Sayin', Just Sayin' on April 14th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Will, how can you say Williams is the most qualified. He has the least diverse background of any candidate, he was finished law school near the bottom of his class, and he’s never distinguished himself as a writer of good opinions. Hearn’s academic background, including an LLM from the University of Virginina, and her 23 years on the bench – including 14 as an appellate court judge — eclipse all other candidates. You can’t expect to be taken seriously if you insist Williams is the most qualified.
By CL on April 14th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
“I mean, I’d hate for consideration of experience, judicial knowledge, temperament, and good old-fashioned intelligence to play a role in the selection of our judges”
Funny how nowhere in this list does Laughable mention respect for the rule of law or judicial restraint. I agree that conservative judicial activism, properly understood, is something that should be avoided. But that is like telling someone to look out for leprechauns. They do not exist in any meaningful way.
To serve as a true counterpoint to liberal activists, a conservative activist would have to actively ignore the Constitution and the law to suit their own personal beliefs. A good example would be a judge claiming that the Constitution PROHIBITS homosexual conduct and/or marriage(a very different question from whether the Constitution, which is silent on the subject, allows the States to ban certain conduct).
The lack of conservative activists does not trouble the Left, as they simply mischaracterize judicial restraint as a form of activism. This is nonsense on stilts, and leads to the absurdity of liberals, without any self-reflection or irony, calling judges practicing judicial restraint “right-wing” extremists.
By Just Checking on April 15th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Wow! Bruce Williams, is a great guy and a great judge, but no one can ever figure out his politics, because he is only for Bruce. He has tried too hard to fast to get to the top court. One week he is tight with conservatives and the next week he is bashing a few of them. He tries to paint Judge Hearn as a liberal, but just about every one of his opinions mirrors hers.