Comments on: Toal Throws Lowcountry Judge To The Wolves http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/03/24/toal-throws-lowcountry-judge-to-the-wolves/ Politics, Sports and Pop Culture Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:49:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Lilly Collette http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/03/24/toal-throws-lowcountry-judge-to-the-wolves/#comment-95887 Lilly Collette Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:13:00 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=42847#comment-95887 See, http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=25346 In the Matter of Anonymous Member of S.C. Bar See, http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=25346
In the Matter of Anonymous Member of S.C. Bar

]]> By: SubZeroIQ http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/03/24/toal-throws-lowcountry-judge-to-the-wolves/#comment-92723 SubZeroIQ Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:27:57 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=42847#comment-92723 Nothing Could Be Finer: Thanks for not letting interest in this wane. This is South Carolina's Marbury v. Madisson, except no Chief Justice Marshall here. Todd: Who are you really? The Clerk of the Supreme Court? But you are too poetic and literate to be he. So, how do you know all this? Everybody: This is very serious. Don't just blow off steam about it and move on. This is about whether we, your children and your grandchildren will live under a predictable rule of law or in a corrupt jungle. Let us all keep thinking, writing and talking about it. Let this thread engender some constitutional amendment or some change of law for the better. God speed. Nothing Could Be Finer: Thanks for not letting interest in this wane. This is South Carolina’s Marbury v. Madisson, except no Chief Justice Marshall here.
Todd: Who are you really? The Clerk of the Supreme Court? But you are too poetic and literate to be he. So, how do you know all this?
Everybody: This is very serious. Don’t just blow off steam about it and move on. This is about whether we, your children and your grandchildren will live under a predictable rule of law or in a corrupt jungle. Let us all keep thinking, writing and talking about it. Let this thread engender some constitutional amendment or some change of law for the better. God speed.

]]> By: Nothing Could Be Finer http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/03/24/toal-throws-lowcountry-judge-to-the-wolves/#comment-92553 Nothing Could Be Finer Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:50:29 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=42847#comment-92553 Zach, litigants need the JMSC. Everyone of these judges knows each other. Many went to law school together. And many do, in fact, socialize with one another and can be found on golf course everywhere across the state playing a round or two with one other - and their lawyer friends. People that know their faces see them often. Zach, litigants need the JMSC. Everyone of these judges knows each other. Many went to law school together. And many do, in fact, socialize with one another and can be found on golf course everywhere across the state playing a round or two with one other – and their lawyer friends. People that know their faces see them often.

]]> By: Nothing Could Be Finer http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/03/24/toal-throws-lowcountry-judge-to-the-wolves/#comment-92552 Nothing Could Be Finer Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:45:25 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=42847#comment-92552 Jean Toal herself went strait from a seat in the House of Representatives to a seat on the SC Supreme Court. Toal was on the court when the court threatened to hold a former Williamsburg County Sheriff in contempt for speaking out about a complaint he had filed with the Supreme Court against corruption by a Williamburg County Magistrate. The court backed down and away from charging the then Sheriff with contempt because federal law made it a crime to punish someone for exercising a clearly established 1st Amendment right. Tell me that Jeal Toal is an upright and just person, and I will fall down on the floor laughing at you. Jean Toal herself went strait from a seat in the House of Representatives to a seat on the SC Supreme Court.

Toal was on the court when the court threatened to hold a former Williamsburg County Sheriff in contempt for speaking out about a complaint he had filed with the Supreme Court against corruption by a Williamburg County Magistrate.

The court backed down and away from charging the then Sheriff with contempt because federal law made it a crime to punish someone for exercising a clearly established 1st Amendment right. Tell me that Jeal Toal is an upright and just person, and I will fall down on the floor laughing at you.

]]> By: Lilly Collette http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/03/24/toal-throws-lowcountry-judge-to-the-wolves/#comment-92386 Lilly Collette Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:41:10 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=42847#comment-92386 Toal Throws Lowcountry Judge To The Wolves --- EXCUSE ME! Segars-Andrews was not a "judge". She committed a crime from the bench and became a trespasser to the bench. Chuckie Segars-Andrews was no better than an "enforcer" in a criminal cartel. Toal Throws Lowcountry Judge To The Wolves —

EXCUSE ME!

Segars-Andrews was not a “judge”. She committed a crime from the bench and became a trespasser to the bench. Chuckie Segars-Andrews was no better than an “enforcer” in a criminal cartel.

]]> By: SubZeroIQ http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/03/24/toal-throws-lowcountry-judge-to-the-wolves/#comment-92280 SubZeroIQ Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:10:14 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=42847#comment-92280 Part III of my comments. What to do now? Retired Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is very worried about the effect of money on statewide elections of state judges and rightly so. Campaign money is now unlimited; and the Caperton vs. Massey case of a West Virginia State Supreme Court Justice who ruled after having indirectly received three million dollars in campaign support from an organization that essentially fronted for a party to the case before him shows the public can reasonably believe that large campaign contributions may influence judicial decisions. So, statewide elections are ever less attractive but federal-type tenure-during-good-behavior system is disfavored by most states. But there is a reason only two states have legislatures elect judges. It is a very bad system; but South Carolina is likely to cling to everything peculiar to it as superior "heritage." Why not let state judges elect and re-elect judges? A variant of that occurs in the federal system. The Article III U.S. District Judges elect (or appoint) the non-Article III federal Magistrate Judges. And the Article III U.S. Circuit Judges elect (or appoint) the non-Article III federal bankruptcy judges. These are for terms and get reappointed. Who better than judges to elect their own colleagues? And who better than judges to see from among the lawyers who practice before them who is good judge material? Students as young as Sixth Grade and as wild as college are trusted to elect their own class presidents etc. Why should judges not be trusted to elect new judges or at least nominate them for statewide up-or-down referanda? Judges would also be best placed to decide among themselves who deserves re-election. The lazy, temperamental or unfair judge is likely to have such reputation in the court houses. And judges themselves would have the highest interest in weeding the chaff from their ranks. Those who worry about women-and-minority representation must know that the judiciary is more likely to elect the more meritorious, not the better-politically-connected, women and minorities, if for no other reason than self-interest. Incompetent judges ideally get appealed and reversed. And unfair ones get asked to recuse themselves. That means more work for the good judges. So, they would have every interest in electing good judges to pull their own weight alongside them. Could factions develop and political and trade-off deals be made among the judges? Sure. But again, the self-interest would limit that to electing and re-electing judges who will not bring headaches to the whole group. Nothing can be worse than South Carolina's system. Different ways deserve to be tried. Yes, they would require amendments to the Constitution of South Carolina; but that is a relatively easy and affordable process. What is unaffordable in any of the United States is de facto rule by one member of one branch. Part III of my comments. What to do now? Retired Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is very worried about the effect of money on statewide elections of state judges and rightly so. Campaign money is now unlimited; and the Caperton vs. Massey case of a West Virginia State Supreme Court Justice who ruled after having indirectly received three million dollars in campaign support from an organization that essentially fronted for a party to the case before him shows the public can reasonably believe that large campaign contributions may influence judicial decisions. So, statewide elections are ever less attractive but federal-type tenure-during-good-behavior system is disfavored by most states.
But there is a reason only two states have legislatures elect judges. It is a very bad system; but South Carolina is likely to cling to everything peculiar to it as superior “heritage.”
Why not let state judges elect and re-elect judges? A variant of that occurs in the federal system. The Article III U.S. District Judges elect (or appoint) the non-Article III federal Magistrate Judges. And the Article III U.S. Circuit Judges elect (or appoint) the non-Article III federal bankruptcy judges. These are for terms and get reappointed. Who better than judges to elect their own colleagues? And who better than judges to see from among the lawyers who practice before them who is good judge material?
Students as young as Sixth Grade and as wild as college are trusted to elect their own class presidents etc. Why should judges not be trusted to elect new judges or at least nominate them for statewide up-or-down referanda? Judges would also be best placed to decide among themselves who deserves re-election. The lazy, temperamental or unfair judge is likely to have such reputation in the court houses.
And judges themselves would have the highest interest in weeding the chaff from their ranks. Those who worry about women-and-minority representation must know that the judiciary is more likely to elect the more meritorious, not the better-politically-connected, women and minorities, if for no other reason than self-interest. Incompetent judges ideally get appealed and reversed. And unfair ones get asked to recuse themselves. That means more work for the good judges. So, they would have every interest in electing good judges to pull their own weight alongside them.
Could factions develop and political and trade-off deals be made among the judges? Sure. But again, the self-interest would limit that to electing and re-electing judges who will not bring headaches to the whole group.
Nothing can be worse than South Carolina’s system. Different ways deserve to be tried. Yes, they would require amendments to the Constitution of South Carolina; but that is a relatively easy and affordable process. What is unaffordable in any of the United States is de facto rule by one member of one branch.

]]> By: SubZeroIQ http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/03/24/toal-throws-lowcountry-judge-to-the-wolves/#comment-92267 SubZeroIQ Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:09:16 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=42847#comment-92267 Part II of my comments. "Charlie" Segars-Andrews should try to go the U.S. Supreme Court with her case. It is not about whether she should have recused herself or not. (I, for one, believe she most surely should have.) It is not about her having been a good or a bad judge. (I do not know and no one can tell now that there was a bidding war on the facts.) The issue is other branches reviewing judicial decisions. The judiciary is supposed to be the non-political branch of government. A republican form of government is guaranteed to the people of every state by Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution. A republican form of government means separation of powers with checks and balances. South Carolina's modern (only in the sense that it was re-written in the second half of the twentieth century) constitution also has a republican form of government provision. The only permissible legislative check on the judiciary is by a pre-detailed impeachment process. The judge either committed an impeachable offense or did not. If she did not, the Legislature had no business looking behind her decision. If she did, she should have been impeached and tried by prescribed procedures. If South Carolina's legislature had no power to impeach sitting judges when "Charlie" did not recuse herself, it cannot ex post facto give itself that power. And it is not as if South Carolina's entire General Assembly, or even Senate, voted by a super-majority or even a simple majority to impeach her. South Carolina's General Assembly did not get to vote on Judge "Charlie" AT ALL due to the actions ONE senator who listened to ONE constituent. So, even if the people of South Carolina were content with some politicization of the election and re-election of their state judges, they expected the political factors to be expressed by the entire General Assembly, which, in turn, must express the choice of the entire state, or a at least a majority thereof. McConnell Caesar said South Carolina's Family Court judges are specially important because there are no juries. WHY SHOULD THERE BE NO JURIES IN FAMILY COURT IN SOUTH CAROLINA? The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of United States guarantees trial by jury where the sum in controversy exceeds twenty dollars. In dollars of their time or ours, property and alimony issues in divorce cases always exceed twenty dollars. Yes, the issues may be sensitive; but it should be the parties' choice to go with a jury or a judge in divorce cases and either way to ask for sealed records. Four wrongs do not make a right. Even if were wrong for "Charlie" to not have recused herself, her ousting in this manner is more wrong. What is most wrong is South Carolina's Supreme Court's analysis, which was in part driven by the timid and opportunistic argument of Judge "Charlie's" lawyer. At oral argument, and in the opinion, it is said that the State Supreme Court may still review (and possibly overturn) the Joint Merit Selection Committee's (JMSC) decision if it is based on impermissible factors such as race and gender. Really? How will the Justices know? They will have to sit as triers of fact. And would that not be exactly violating the separation of powers they said they cannot do by overturning the JMSC's decision? What if the reason the JMSC finds the next judge "unqualified" is that the judge fairly ruled for a poor immigrant worker against a powerful local employer? Is that constitutional or not? And does South Carolina's Supreme Court promise to take, in its original jurisdiction, every case a judge or candidate alleges (s)he was ruled unqualified because the JMSC took into consideration impermissible factors? Please see Part III of my comments for suggestions of a better system. And again, thanks for printing my comments and for reading them. Part II of my comments. “Charlie” Segars-Andrews should try to go the U.S. Supreme Court with her case. It is not about whether she should have recused herself or not. (I, for one, believe she most surely should have.) It is not about her having been a good or a bad judge. (I do not know and no one can tell now that there was a bidding war on the facts.) The issue is other branches reviewing judicial decisions.

The judiciary is supposed to be the non-political branch of government. A republican form of government is guaranteed to the people of every state by Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution. A republican form of government means separation of powers with checks and balances. South Carolina’s modern (only in the sense that it was re-written in the second half of the twentieth century) constitution also has a republican form of government provision. The only permissible legislative check on the judiciary is by a pre-detailed impeachment process. The judge either committed an impeachable offense or did not.

If she did not, the Legislature had no business looking behind her decision. If she did, she should have been impeached and tried by prescribed procedures. If South Carolina’s legislature had no power to impeach sitting judges when “Charlie” did not recuse herself, it cannot ex post facto give itself that power. And it is not as if South Carolina’s entire General Assembly, or even Senate, voted by a super-majority or even a simple majority to impeach her. South Carolina’s General Assembly did not get to vote on Judge “Charlie” AT ALL due to the actions ONE senator who listened to ONE constituent.

So, even if the people of South Carolina were content with some politicization of the election and re-election of their state judges, they expected the political factors to be expressed by the entire General Assembly, which, in turn, must express the choice of the entire state, or a at least a majority thereof.

McConnell Caesar said South Carolina’s Family Court judges are specially important because there are no juries. WHY SHOULD THERE BE NO JURIES IN FAMILY COURT IN SOUTH CAROLINA? The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of United States guarantees trial by jury where the sum in controversy exceeds twenty dollars. In dollars of their time or ours, property and alimony issues in divorce cases always exceed twenty dollars. Yes, the issues may be sensitive; but it should be the parties’ choice to go with a jury or a judge in divorce cases and either way to ask for sealed records.

Four wrongs do not make a right. Even if were wrong for “Charlie” to not have recused herself, her ousting in this manner is more wrong. What is most wrong is South Carolina’s Supreme Court’s analysis, which was in part driven by the timid and opportunistic argument of Judge “Charlie’s” lawyer. At oral argument, and in the opinion, it is said that the State Supreme Court may still review (and possibly overturn) the Joint Merit Selection Committee’s (JMSC) decision if it is based on impermissible factors such as race and gender. Really? How will the Justices know? They will have to sit as triers of fact. And would that not be exactly violating the separation of powers they said they cannot do by overturning the JMSC’s decision? What if the reason the JMSC finds the next judge “unqualified” is that the judge fairly ruled for a poor immigrant worker against a powerful local employer? Is that constitutional or not? And does South Carolina’s Supreme Court promise to take, in its original jurisdiction, every case a judge or candidate alleges (s)he was ruled unqualified because the JMSC took into consideration impermissible factors?

Please see Part III of my comments for suggestions of a better system. And again, thanks for printing my comments and for reading them.

]]> By: beentook2 http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/03/24/toal-throws-lowcountry-judge-to-the-wolves/#comment-92179 beentook2 Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:19:28 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=42847#comment-92179 Great story. Love to read about the cockroaches feeding off each other. As for McConnell there is no need to worry. Word out of the Holy Shit City of Charleston is that the Hunley is ready for re-launching. McConnell has volunteered to Captain the vessel. Bauer will be the hands on first mate. Their target will the Union Aircraft Carrier Yorktown. Upon sinking the sunken Carrier, McConnell and crew will return to the Holy Shit City of Charleston and run nakkied through the downtown area. The world famous cinematographer Humpme Cromer will film the event and all proceeds will go to the Erection of Boss Hog Knotts (likeness) on the State House grounds. Great story. Love to read about the cockroaches feeding off each other.

As for McConnell there is no need to worry.

Word out of the Holy Shit City of Charleston is that the Hunley is ready for re-launching. McConnell has volunteered to Captain the vessel. Bauer will be the hands on first mate.

Their target will the Union Aircraft Carrier Yorktown. Upon sinking the sunken Carrier, McConnell and crew will return to the Holy Shit City of Charleston and run nakkied through the downtown area.

The world famous cinematographer Humpme Cromer will film the event and all proceeds will go to the Erection of Boss Hog Knotts (likeness) on the State House grounds.

]]> By: Dirty Benches in CHS http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/03/24/toal-throws-lowcountry-judge-to-the-wolves/#comment-92173 Dirty Benches in CHS Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:42:50 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=42847#comment-92173 It's mighty nice down here in Charleston. There's a certain "cleanliness, clarity and beauty on Broad Street now"....Thank you Senator McConnell. Please continue cleaning house. It’s mighty nice down here in Charleston. There’s a certain “cleanliness, clarity and beauty on Broad Street now”….Thank you Senator McConnell. Please continue cleaning house.

]]> By: Todd http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/03/24/toal-throws-lowcountry-judge-to-the-wolves/#comment-92168 Todd Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:44:23 +0000 http://www.fitsnews.com/?p=42847#comment-92168 SubZeroIQ: A lot of what you say may be true. McConnell, however, is still not suffering as much from his case of malignant narcissism as Toal is from hers. Toal caved in to McConnell in this issue to protect her kingdom. So she lost one judge in this round? It still allows her to run the judiciary as she pleases and delayed further review of her systems. Why hasn't Hearn stepped up to the plate and taken Toal on as was promised when Hearn was running for her position? Pleiconas is too weak and perhaps lazy. Beatty can't seem to do it. Kittredge is just so happy to be at the party - but still doesn't know why he was invited and doesn't know what to do now that he is there. Therefore, he votes as Toal and Pleiconas tell him to do. Sheesh. SubZeroIQ: A lot of what you say may be true. McConnell, however, is still not suffering as much from his case of malignant narcissism as Toal is from hers. Toal caved in to McConnell in this issue to protect her kingdom. So she lost one judge in this round? It still allows her to run the judiciary as she pleases and delayed further review of her systems. Why hasn’t Hearn stepped up to the plate and taken Toal on as was promised when Hearn was running for her position? Pleiconas is too weak and perhaps lazy. Beatty can’t seem to do it. Kittredge is just so happy to be at the party – but still doesn’t know why he was invited and doesn’t know what to do now that he is there. Therefore, he votes as Toal and Pleiconas tell him to do. Sheesh.

]]>