Federal Judge Had Apparent Conflict With Sanford
“Judges … just ta hold grudges in the courtroom …”
In addition to being an oft-quoted line from one of our favorite Outkast songs, that expression may lie at the heart of one of the biggest judicial decisions in South Carolina history.
That’s because the federal judge who sent two high-profile federal “stimulus” lawsuits back to the S.C. Supreme Court had 30,001 reasons not to like S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford.
The first reason? That’s easy enough … Judge Joseph F. Anderson is a former lawmaker himself.
In fact, he served for six years in the S.C. General Assembly alongside S.C. Chief Justice Jean H. Toal, who was a thirteen-year Democratic Representative prior to her 1988 election to the court.
In other words, he’s a former S.C. lawmaker ruling in favor of one of his former colleagues in the S.C. General Assembly so that she could rule in favor of … wait for it … the S.C. General Assembly.
Seriously, the S.C. Supreme Court has all but telegraphed its intention to hand over control of the disputed $740 million in federal “stimulus” funds to S.C. lawmakers, who oh by the way elect the state’s Supreme Court Justices.
“Keeping it in the family,” so to speak.
“This state is such an incestuous cesspool,” one Palmetto political observer noted when told of the connections.
Of course as “wink and nod” as Anderson’s rulings against Sanford appear to have been, his previous service with Toal probably wouldn’t have been enough to disquality him – or warrant an appeal of his ruling. After all, he served with Toal two decades ago.
But what about the other 30,000 reasons?
Specifically, what about the $30,000 that Sanford raised to help Sen. Shane Massey defeat Judge Anderson’s brother, Democrat Greg Anderson, in a close and incredibly contentious 2008 State Senate race in Aiken County?
You’re telling us that didn’t factor in his decision?
Seriously, people … that was six months ago.
And believe us, when we say that the Anderson-Massey race was “incredibly contentious,” we mean that in the way cock fights (which are quite popular in Edgefield, S.C., incidentally) are “incredibly contentious.”
Anyway, as we started making the rounds with this story, we received several calls from people on both sides of the ruling telling us that we should tread carefully before calling Judge Anderson’s integrity into question.
Of course, we politely told those people to eat our shorts. We call things like we see them around here.
Besides, the circumstances are what they are, and in our estimation it’s painfully obvious that Anderson should have recused himself given the obvious proximity to Sanford and the opportunity this ruling provided him to avenge his brother’s defeat last November.
Sanford’s office, sadly, wasn’t taking the bait.
“We don’t have any reason to question his integrity,” said Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer, “From the bench, he even said it was a close call.”
Fine. Maybe it was a “close call.”
But that doesn’t change the fact that there is now legitimate suspicion about the integrity of Anderson’s ruling. In fact, if it really was such a “close call,” we wonder how a Judge whose brother wasn’t defeated by $30,000 worth of Sanford cash would have ruled?
Given the magnitude of this ruling – and the potential implications of the upcoming Supreme Court ruling – we think this case should have been decided by someone unafflicted with such clear (and recent) conflict of interest.
Of course, that’s just our opinion … to the poll! And the comment board!
Loading ...
Comments
By smart Kid Grant on June 1st, 2009 at 8:40 pm
it does seem to have a few ethical issues surrounding it…
By tricklovethekids on June 1st, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Good story, this is how the game works…won’t see this in the papers
By Silence Dogood on June 1st, 2009 at 9:04 pm
“Anyway, as we started making the rounds with this story, we received several calls from people on both sides of the ruling telling us that we should tread carefully before calling Judge Anderson’s integrity into question.
Of course, we politely told those people to eat our shorts. We call things like we see them around here.”
Fits, this is terrible, despite your “call’em” like you “see’em” state of mind, the fact that Sanford directly lied to the Supreme Court about his intentions to remove jurisdiction in order to file after the deadline for filing had passed didn’t even tend to make your radar???
Furthemore, I think this explicit and intentional misrepresentation to the state Supreme court, more than anything else is what is going to hurt Sanford’s case. In addition to that, your poppycock theory that because Toal was in the legislature she will therefore hold for the legislature on everything (she can’t be reappointed again by the way and is on her last term) holds absolutely no water either. Wasn’t Sanford in the legislative branch of the U.S. Government – so should Judge Anderson have been torn.
Also, you noted Sanford raised $30,000 for Shane Massey? Can you tell me what the website is or where the filing records for donations are kept where you fill in the slot next to it “This $100.00 was given to me by Silence Dogood, but was REALLY done so on behalf of Will Folks” Was that the website where Judge Anderson was checking to find out that Sanford raised $30,000 and $1 for Massey?
By Garnet Spy on June 1st, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Will, as often as we agree, I have to break ranks on this one. I’ve known Joe Anderson for over 40 years and “integrity” cannot be dissassociated from him. Despite his voluntary flaws as a Democrat and Clemson grad, Judge Anderson is a solid jurist and a good man. Though there may seem to be reason for him to screw Sanford over, I firmly believe his ruling was based on the rule of law as he interpreted it.
By Silence Dogood on June 1st, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Fits, I checked the SC state ethics findings and on a humorous side note, the only state Senate Campaing that Mashall and Jenny Sanford gave to was Sen. David Thomas’ Campaign. I still have yet to find where the “raised money” for slot is on any of the donation tracking or monetary filings is located?
By Steven on June 1st, 2009 at 9:37 pm
SC Ethics at its best!!! Wouldn’t expect anything less. I think a bill is in order for next year. No persons that have held a house or senate seat can be hired as a lobbyist, govt laison, or judge. Now that is moral and ethical!
By CNSYD on June 1st, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Suck it up! Markie Mark is a loser!
By BIN News Editorial Staff on June 1st, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Our BIN News Legal Department conducted a thorough review of this decision and came to the conclusion that sic(k) willie needs to eat his own shorts.
Questioning da’Judge’s integrity on this is like claiming a Midlands’ elected official has a “Strom problem.” Update us on that, please.
It makes sic(k) willie look like the f@@l on the hill.
BIN News Legal Staff Rules
Flair and Balanced
P.S. We told you so. It’s called the rule of law. Ask Mandee about it.
By Zeke on June 1st, 2009 at 10:48 pm
You’re off base on the Anderson-Toal relationship. He knows what she is and how she operates. He got her number years ago. He didn’t send this down to the Queen because he feels cozy with her.
By Phil Bailey on June 2nd, 2009 at 12:24 am
Will,
As someone who was involved in that race, this post amounts to toilet paper(single-ply).
-Phil
By fitsnews on June 2nd, 2009 at 1:26 am
Well! This one has certainly sparked a reaction. We’re just throwing out facts and offering our assessments of those facts. Good to see there is no shortage of opinions, though.
-FITS
By lou on June 2nd, 2009 at 6:56 am
The first of many losses for Marky Mark Sanfraud
By utah on June 2nd, 2009 at 7:34 am
So let me get this straight. Sanford couldn’t get a fair shake in the state Supreme Court because the justices are elected by the legislature. Therefore, he removed it to Federal Court, where he could get a fair chance. However, when he lost there it wasn’t because his position was wrong, it’s because the Federal judge had an axe to grind. Jeez, sounds like everybody is out to get poor Mark. Or maybe his argument that Federal courts should decide state separation of powers issues is wholly unsupported by the U.S. Constitution and case law.
By Toyota Kawaski on June 2nd, 2009 at 8:53 am
Fits once again get your facts correct Sanfraud did not raise one dam dime for Massey.Gov did nothing for Shane! He was to busy sucking eggs with Ryberg and that yankee rino Scotty To Hotty Singer.
By You didn't get this from me on June 2nd, 2009 at 10:05 am
Do you really have your head so far up Mark Sanford’s ass that you believe this crap?
By Hmmmm.... on June 2nd, 2009 at 10:32 am
FITS you noted that you were “just throwing out facts,” so if it is a fact that Sanford raised $30,000.00 or more for Massey, where can we check on that???
This was the crux of your entire argument. Oh, my bad, when you said you were just “throwing out the facts” you meant actually throwing them away as in the garbage, and not as in slang for actually putting the facts out there for people to see. Got it!
By Laurin on June 2nd, 2009 at 10:37 am
This post sure is grasping for a silver bullet, but you’re ignoring the most obvious point: the heart of the controversy in this matter concerns the balance of power in South Carolina’s governmental structure as it’s laid out by the South Carolina constitution. That kind of case belongs in state court — not federal court.
By fitsnews on June 2nd, 2009 at 10:56 am
“YDGTFM,”
We are about to get our Sanford rip on for his foolhardy handling of this situation. Patience, grasshopper. In the meantime, why are you so angry? Your team won, dude. Your bureaucrat buddies will seriously be rolling around in that money in no time.
“Hmmmmm,”
Actually, it looks like the event for Shane Massey featuring Gov. Mark Sanford (which was held at Greg Ryberg’s palatial Sullivans Island SC home) raised $35,000, not $30,000 as we previously reported. We’re cross-tabbing the contributions/ contribution dates on the State Ethics Commission website right now to make sure.
“Laurin,”
Wait … that really is your name. Sorry for the quotation marks. Girlfriend, please. You know Sic Willie better than that. The only thing he “grasps” for is luscious lady lumps.
-FITS
By Hmmmm.... on June 2nd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
FITS, thank you for that, seriously.
What was the date of the fundraiser at Greg Ryberg’s house which included the gov. I will be happy to check as well – nontheless, I doubt that Judge Anderson did that.
P.S. please don’t include as any part of that $50,000 that Massey loaned to his own campaign, itis a common practice and frankly I doubt any of THAT was inspired by the governor.
By fromupstate on June 2nd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Nice try FITS. I usually see you as credible for digging the scoop/dirt on folks but you missed this one by a mile.
If the world has 6 degrees of separation, the State of South Carolina has 2 degrees. Likewise, the legal community and law making community has about 1 degree of separation (just like every other state). If you think that is unethical and immoral, then start a PAC to help put high school drop outs into state office and federal benches (good luck with that one).
With the criteria you believe should be required, every federal judge in the state would have to recuse him or herself from this case. Guess what…. they all know Chief Justice Toal.
Judge Anderson’s judicial integrity is as strong as any other state or federal judge in SC.
Judge Anderson served in the legislature with Arthur Ravenel, that didn’t stop him from sending Thomas Ravenel to prison. He was friends with President Holderman at USC, that didn’t’ stop him from sending him to prison as well. Federal judges have former colleagues and classmates that try cases in front of them every day. You guys are either out of tune with the legal process, got some bad information or just trying to stir the pot because that’s what gets hits on your website. I would have expected something like this from “La Socialista”, but not FITS. Perhaps I should adjust my expectations.
p.s.- Democrat? really???? appointed by Ronald Reagan to the Federal bench…… A southern democrat in the early 1980s and a “Democrat” are two very different things. Come on FITS……
By Zeke on June 2nd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
fus (fromupstate): Notice you commented on Judge Anderson’s reputation for high ethical standards and judicial integrity but omitted your view on the Queen’s. Hmmm.
By Time to Call on June 2nd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
This is the biggest stretch of the imagination and greatest fabrication you have put in this site. And I seriously doubt that Mark was responsible for the $30k…as a sponsor, I am sure he lent his name and nothing else.
By fitsnews on June 2nd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
FYI to all …
http://www.fitsnews.com/2009/06/02/in-case-anybody-still-cares/
… now you haters can smooch our roundness, Eminem-style.
“Stench of imagination?” “Fabrication?” “Sanford did not raise one dam(n) dime?”
Read it and weep, bitches.
Oh, and one other thing, it’s friggin’ amazing how much “integrity” a bunch of status quo sycophants will assign to somebody who just dumped $740 million into their laps.
-FITS
By That's Politics on June 2nd, 2009 at 6:28 pm
First of all, Joe Anderson is a stand up, good guy.
But for arguments sake, say he was ethically challenged. Sanford took a risk when he supported Massey, and maybe it came back to bite him in the ass. He should have known better.
By Silence Dogood on June 3rd, 2009 at 1:44 am
I appreciate “hmmmm’s” comments and concurr, but I still doubt what you say, I am glad I “proved a response” though. I will post my thought on your updated link. Shane Massey only rasied a little under $35,000 in the ENTIRE month of Sept. according to his filings with the state, are you seriously contributing all of that to the governor’s fund raiser?