|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
South Carolina circuit court nominee Melissa Inzerillo is receiving pressure from members of the S.C. General Assembly to withdraw her judicial candidacy amid allegations her rival for the seat was unfairly disqualified from consideration.
Inzerillo, a career public defender, was originally running for the S.C. sixteenth circuit seat alongside York County magistrate Jennifer S. Colton. Colton’s candidacy was cut short, however, by an unfavorable review from the S.C. Bar’s judicial qualifications committee.
South Carolina’s judicial selection process empowers this committee to submit its findings on judicial qualification to members of the much-maligned S.C. Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) – a panel dominated by lawyer-legislators which in turn determines which judicial candidates are voted on by the whole General Assembly.
Judicial qualification reports are not publicized in the event a candidate withdraws from consideration for nomination.
***
Some lawmakers feel the qualification committee’s report unfairly discredited Colton, and feel this same panel has disqualified other qualified candidates due to political considerations which are inappropriate for the committee to base their recommendations on.
“Jennifer was the victim of a coordinated campaign of character assassination,” S.C. senator Wes Climer told FITSNews.
“Anonymous surveys should not be used,” Climer said when asked how the judicial review process could be made incorruptible. “I think this type of thing can’t happen if the accused has an opportunity to cross examine the accuser.”
Numerous other members of the York County legislative delegation are upset that Inzerillo, a career public defender who is not expected to rule with a conservative judicial temperament, is the only candidate the JMSC advanced for this seat. Accordingly, they are in the process of whipping a sufficient number of votes in the hopes of convincing her not to proceed with her candidacy. Her withdrawal would allow other candidates to submit themselves for consideration for the position.
***
RELATED | S.C. HOUSE GOP TAPS FLAMETHROWER
***
State representative Brandon Guffey – recently tapped as the House GOP’s communications chairman – told FITSNews “we had two qualified candidates,” and confirmed he was whipping votes against Inzerillo because “my feeling is that it was not a fair vetting.”
“I don’t want any fingers on the scale,” Guffey said. ” I want the system to work the way it’s supposed to work, and I want qualified candidates to apply and go through screening equally.”
With a few exceptions, the sixteenth judicial circuit has earned a reputation as a jurisdiction that is tough on those convicted of crimes – something Guffey doesn’t want to see change.
“We’re known to be tough on crime,” Guffey said. “(We) don’t want people going to jail and coming right back out. I want to ensure that we’ve got a strong judge in there, and with only having one candidate choose from – I don’t feel like that’s good enough.”
***
***
JMSC member and prominent Palmetto State attorney Pete Strom referenced the circuit’s reputation when speaking to Inzerillo during her appearance before the panel.
“I can tell you, from a statewide perspective, you talk to most criminal defense lawyers, and they think that your circuit gets higher sentences than any other circuit in state,” Strom said. “(Convicts) get probation in Richland, Lexington, the ninth circuit, the fourteenth circuit (but) in York County, you go to jail.”
Strom encouraged Inzerillo to bring her experience as a public defender to the bench when sentencing criminals.
“I encourage you to think about that in your sentencing practice and and to stand up and do what you think is right and not worry about the criticism,” Strom said.
In the event Inzerillo cannot be convinced to withdraw from consideration, sources tell FITSNews multiple lawmakers in both the S.C. House and Senate are prepared to vigorously advocate against her election – and have suggested that there may already be sufficient support to kill her candidacy.
Just because there is only one name on the legislative ballot for a judicial election does not mean that candidate is guaranteed to win a seat on the bench. Last year, former S.C. House minority leader James Smith saw his judicial bid defeated after FITSNews called out GOP lawmakers for supporting the former Democrat gubernatorial nominee.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
(Via: Travis Bell)
Dylan Nolan is the director of special projects at FITSNews. He graduated from the Darla Moore school of business in 2021 with an accounting degree. Got a tip or story idea for Dylan? Email him here. You can also engage him socially @DNolan2000.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
12 comments
“Numerous other members of the York County legislative delegation are upset that Inzerillo, a career public defender who is not expected to rule with a conservative judicial temperament, is the only candidate the JMSC advanced for this seat.”
In other words, the York County legislative delegation is looking for a “hang ’em, darn it” type of a judge, instead of one who is more inclined to give a person (who is presumed innocent until proven guilty) a fair shake.
South Carolina has its fill of judges who rule with a jaundiced eye toward any person accused of a crime.
How is Inzerillo any less qualified than any of these “career prosecutors”?
She is not a pathological narcissist that speaks with sour grapes in her mouth like current or even past SC judges. One newly appointed SC judge from the up state with a heavy southern accent did not last long after screaming from the bench concerning a horribly rogue and lawless attorney’s dirty moves, “ain’t no FBI agents know the law!”
Talk about a nut!
In any event, I thank God that the Fits team is undaunted to report what they do.
They failed to mention that the same delegation told another member of the bar, who was absolutely qualified, to not run for the seat because he was a democrat. That is what started this shit storm to begin with.
At least anonymous admits it’s a coordinated and intentional assassination by the bar.
Goodness … wonder what happened to FAIRNESS when judicial temperament is on the table?
I wonder how Guffy feels about his president and other US officials being “tough on crime” and convicted felons “going to jail and coming right back out” in the cases of numerous police assaulters from 6 January 2021 hitting the streets with all the rights to buy guns and do it again—or, I the case of the orange-headed supreme leader—never stepping foot inside prison at all?
Sorry but in a conservative state the majority of the electorate want judges who will put convicted people in jail not dole out token punishment. The conversation should be about building more prisons, not finding alternative sentencing methods. The bench in Greenville is suffering right now with the newly appointed democrat female judge who barely knows court rules or basic law. I hope victims of crimes don’t go into her courtroom looking for justice.
What happened to overhauling the corrupt JMSC? This good old boy system has gone on way too long. Get those trial lawyers off the committee
This woman is more qualified the other females who were elected to the bench.
Like the SC female who was once given a black robe. After one year presiding over hearings, a corrupt and lawless female SC attorney was put in her place by the other party in the case. The court was alerted that one of he head FBI agents in the state was prepared to charge the rogue female lawyer The new judge to the beach who was from the upstate reacted. She screamed at the top of her lungs during the hearing in a heavy southern accent, “a’nt no FBI agents no’s da law!”
That female judge didn’t seek another term.
You should have seen the JMSC hearing for Judge Monet Pincus in November…what a clown show. 4 complainants, although 1 wasn’t very convincing, the other 3 were.
Thurmond’s kin had to stand up and defend her because the complaints were so awful….looks like that one was swept right under the bus. Odd that the head of a major law firm that works with Pincus often was in attendance too…they even had a little “pow wow” outside of the building yucking it up.
“Appearance of impropriety-what’s that?”-Judge Pincus
Either appoint judges like the federal system: Governor nominates, Senate confirms. Or popular election — works for Probate Judges
I was there for 87 out of 89 screenings.
A few of the bigger JMSC bamboozles are as follows:
Judge Kristi “Lenient on Pedophiles, Cruel to Senior Citizens” Curtis;
Justin “Most Qualified, but Not Nominated” Williams;
Judge Monet”Reunification Therapy, Marketing Ploy” Pincus;
Judge Jan Bromell “Lock up the Innocent” Holmes;
Judge Rochelle “Sealed Records For My Protection ” Conits;
Timothy “Do Better” Madden;
Judge Eugene “Three Dead… Might as Well Try Circuit Court” Warr;
Judge Joseph “Medical Kidnap” Smithdeal;
Judge W. Marsh “Gone Fishin” Robertson;
Judge M. Scott “Real Estate Fraud” Rankin;
Judge Deadra “Friend of Luke Rankin” Jefferson;
Amanda “Goin’ out to celebrate” Whittle;
Christian “”Fake Feud” Spradley; and
Judge Timothy “Defaming Private Citizens on Camera” Pogue.
And if you really want a clip for the highlight reel…. check out pro se litigant Rhonda Meisner during screening of Judge Michelle Hurley.
Before the screening began, Erin Crawford leaned over to Senator Attorney, Chairman, Committee Head (SACCH or “SAC”) Luke Rankin and remarked, “You know Meisner is gonna try to keep talking, right?”SAC Rankin agreed and called Rutherford over. Rutherford, Strom, and Rankin had a confab on “how to shut Meisner down.” Strom suggested they “put her on a timer.”
Rankin agreed but instructed that someone must “make a Motion on record.”
I didn’t hear the next part because Rutherford turned his back to me, but it appeared Rutherford was tapped to make said motion.
When the screening commenced, Rutherford, Strom and Rankin triple teamed pro se Meisner who held her own admirably, thereby proving the three “top litigators” in the state have likely not litigated an actual case in front of an impartial judge in years (if ever).
When Rutherford commenced to further bully Meisner, attempting to cut her off and move to put her on a timer, Meisner stated (paraphrasing here), “respectfully, Representative Rutherford, I’m not finished speaking.”
I’m not sure if it’s on video, but Representative Rutherford’s mouth gained before clamping shut. At that point, he completely disengaged and played on his phone during the rest of the screening. Apparently, after Meisner shut down Rutherford, the other EIGHT attorneys on the panel were too scared to challenge her lest they be publicly shamed as well.