SC Lawmakers Could Reject Supreme Court Slate
Two of South Carolina’s most influential lawmakers are reportedly “considering procedural options” that would enable them to reject a slate of left-leaning judges that were chosen last week to compete for a spot on the state’s highest court.
South Carolina’s “Republican” General Assembly has already elected one Democrat to the Supreme Court in recent years, and Sen. Hugh Leatherman is rumored to be working closely with S.C. Chief Justice Jean Toal to elect yet another one – Chief Appeals Court Judge Kaye Hearn.
A monkey wrench could be in the works, however, as some conservative lawmakers are reportedly so outraged by the results of last week’s judicial merit selection process that they are plotting for a way to reject the current slate of candidates and send the commission that chose them back to the drawing board.
Specifically, Senate President Glenn McConnell and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Harrison are said to be among the lawmakers currently in favor of reshuffling the deck.
“There is no point in going through the charade of looking at qualifications if the most qualified judges are rejected for reasons unrelated to their fitness,” one Judiciary staffer told FITS. “We are making a mockery of the process and selecting unqualified, liberal judges to be voted on.”
Another lawmaker told FITS that the slate was “locked” and that even McConnell and Harrison wouldn’t be able to change it.
Again, we’d like to state for the record that the eminently-corrupt S.C. General Assembly should have absolutely nothing to do with electing judges.
They should be nominated by the chief executive, whoever he or she may be, with advice and consent of the Senate.
That’s the only way to do it.
Comments
By RON PAUL on April 21st, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Judges should never be seated in any court till they have proven to be a scholar of the Constitution and to conduct their courts in the language of the law.There need be no interpretation, as the Constitution is very direct.The term interpretation is an excuse to bastardize its meaning and to insult our founders.South Carolina being the first to fight and one of the first to estabish itself as a state, should be the leader in Judges that protect and carry on our republic.
By WOW... on April 21st, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Guess what General Assembly? It’s happened in the past that the merit selection committee has done this exact same thing — so why should this year piss ya’ll off? Scared to have another woman in the Supreme Court? I suppose this is what we should expect from a legislature that is SCARCE on woman members and completely out of touch.
By AWWW on April 22nd, 2009 at 8:03 am
Poor Judge Williams isn’t happy about not getting his way, huh!?! That’s just too bad. Once again Will, your willingness to pimp the agenda of couple of idiots over in the legislature is amazing. You could care less about who gets elected to the Supreme Court, right?? (wink, wink). Your whole M.O. is calling out so-called “RINOs” in the legislature, yet when the few half-brains over there who still talk to you tell you one of the candidates is the “most qualified, most conservative, most pro-business judge” you take that at face value? Williams was a Dem until five years ago when he decided it would be in his best interest to become a Repub. Sound familiar? It should, because its the exact kind of BS you routinely call out on this site … except for now. Same goes with continually calling Hearn a liberal/Dem. What exactly is that based on? Have you met her? Can you point to one of her opinions that is “liberal”? No? Didn’t think so. But based again on the agenda of those you talk to, you’re willing to continually put it on this site. Atta boy Will, keep up the lies.
By Not Sayin', Just Sayin' on April 22nd, 2009 at 9:50 am
Williams is the ultimate RINO. He’s no different than Hearn, just not as smart, successful as an attorney, or experienced as a judge.
By Not Sayin', Just Sayin' on April 22nd, 2009 at 9:52 am
And if McConnell isn’t happy with Hearn, why did he vote for her in JMSC?
By Red Bank Bar on April 22nd, 2009 at 9:56 am
As I’ve said repeatedly, folks is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Res ipsa loquitur.
By Just Checking on April 22nd, 2009 at 10:45 am
Bruce needs to give it up and quit having you shill for him….and his wife needs to find a new boyfriend now that hers left the law school
By fitsnews on April 22nd, 2009 at 10:53 am
Sheesh. We have never met the dude. Just like we never met the dude we supposedly “elected” last year. Seriously.
We give not a shitake mushroom about ANY OF IT.
In fact, the “reject the slate” ploy is reportedly being advanced as a method of ensuring Hearn’s election, as there is reportedly concern among Hearn backers that Few has the votes.
Again, the GA shouldn’t be involved in any of this (a.k.a. “our point.”).
Next time, you status quo inbreds might consider not reflexively accusing us of being on the payroll of EVERY single issue we write about.
Or don’t consider that … we could care less.
-FITS
By jkpolk on April 22nd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
You are entitled to your opinion, but people think you are on someone’s payroll because your logic is constructed in reverse. You say the GA cannot be trusted (your “point”) because they are rejecting conservative judges in favor of liberal ones. You base this on the declaration that one judge is conservative (Williams) and the other liberal (Hearn) when the undisputed facts suggest that, if anything, Hearn is slightly more pro-business (based on the ONLY case they have EVER disagreed on). In terms of criminal cases, four former US Attorneys (including Strom Jr.) favor her as being tough on crime. You keep repeating your claims while protesting that you don’t care at all about the race. It just doesn’t add up. Look, I think all three judges are solid. But if people think you have a rather urgent agenda here, that’s the reason.
By fitsnews on April 22nd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Reverse logic? You are talking over our heads, dude. We are really, really not that smart. And again, we could care less.
But hey, sure, go on and think that Williams is paying us THOUSANDS to pimp him. Whatever floats your boat works for us.
-FITS
By jkpolk on April 22nd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I am definitely NOT suggesting that Judge Williams is paying anyone. I do, however, think you are smarter than me!
By Not Sayin', Just Sayin' on April 22nd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Fitsy, for once I’m not trying to be an ass, but why would McConnell be critical of having Hearn rather than Williams on the slate when he voted for Hearn (who received a vote from each member) and at least ultimately didn’t vote for Williams (who in the final vote received no votes)? That part of this story doesn’t make sense.
By fitsnews on April 22nd, 2009 at 3:01 pm
jkpolk- doubtful. Sic Willie is borderline retarded.
NSJS- you have the best handle in the history of FITS commenters. in fact, the phrase “not sayin, just sayin” has become part of Sic and Mrs. Sic’s daily interaction. but please, do not tarnish your legacy with such silly questions. everybody knows the way people vote has nothing to do with anything except in very rare occasions. probably three-quarters of mcconnell’s votes are nothing but show.
-FITS
By Not Sayin', Just Sayin' on April 23rd, 2009 at 9:12 am
My legacy is solid tarnish – why stop now? I really have clue how the JMSC voting process works. The judicial election process is truly the greatest mystery of the State House to me. Second greatest: Andre Bauer.