|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
South Carolina’s supreme court – which in recent years has become little more than an appendage of the all-powerful legislative branch of government – rejected a bid by state treasurer Curtis Loftis to delay a constitutionally dubious show ‘trial’ scheduled for next Monday (April 21, 2025) in the S.C. Senate.
The court’s decision – released on Thursday afternoon (April 17, 2025) – declined to address the merits of the case. Specifically, it refused to weigh in on the legislature’s authority to bypass impeachment proceedings and remove Loftis from office via “address,” a power lawmakers insist is prescribed to them via Article XV, Section 3 of the S.C. Constitution.
The five justices dismissed Loftis’ case against the Senate saying it was “not yet ripe” for their consideration. More significantly, they declined to issue “a preliminary injunction enjoining the removal proceedings.”
That means senators get to hold their kangaroo court next week – with Loftis unlikely to survive the vote.
As we reported earlier this week, state senators – led by fiscal liberal Larry Grooms – want to throw Loftis out of office for a $1.8 billion accounting error which appears to have originated in the office of Democrat comptroller general Brian J. Gaines (and his predecessor, “Republican” Richard Eckstrom).
***
Gaines’ office was blistered in an independent report issued back in January related to this “missing” money, a report which ultimately concluded the $1.8 billion was an “amalgamation.”
Our audience will recall Eckstrom resigned in 2023 following a much larger accounting error.
And as I correctly predicted, the high court was unlikely to step in and stop the show trial of Loftis because it is effectively controlled by the legislature.
South Carolina is one of only two states in America in which powerful lawyer-legislators picks judges via legislative election. Actually, it’s worse than that – a legislatively controlled panel screens the choices ahead of time, effectively rigging judicial races before they begin.
Now, state senators are seeking to take out an independently elected executive… further neutering the independence of this already diluted branch of government. They’re also seeking to do it outside the normal impeachment route – which requires any attempt to oust Loftis (or any other official elected at the statewide level) to originate in the S.C. House of Representatives and be followed by a trial in the S.C. Senate.
“The House of Representatives alone shall have the power of impeachment in cases of serious crimes or serious misconduct in office by officials elected on a statewide basis,” Article XV, Section 1 of the S.C. Constitution notes.
Seems cut and dried…
***
RELATED | LEGISLATIVE TYRANNY ROLLS ON
***
“We respect the court’s decision but do note that our case was not dismissed on the merits,” Loftis said on Thursday. “Rather the court determined that it was not yet ripe for review – meaning that certain events have not yet occurred or fully developed to allow the court to consider the issues at this time.”
“This does not lessen the seriousness of the concerns we have raised,” Loftis added. “The legal issues at the heart of our case remain unresolved, and we believe they still pose significant legal and public interest issues. We are prepared to state our case before the Senate on Monday. We know this process will be more political theatrics than the formal trial one would expect to overturn a statewide election.”
Loftis was elected to a fourth term in 2022 with a whopping 79.7% of the vote – the highest percentage of any statewide official who did not run unopposed in that election cycle.
If a vote in the 46-member Senate to remove Loftis is successful (i.e. if two-thirds of senators vote in favor of his removal), a similar margin must be achieved in the 124-member House. Assuming that were to happen, governor Henry McMaster would have no choice but to remove Loftis from office, per the legislative interpretation of Article IV, Section 3.
As I’ve previously argued, all of the evidence we have seen in this case exonerates Loftis and points the finger of blame at Gaines. Perhaps there is evidence senators have in their possession which implicates Loftis in some sort of misconduct, but if that is the case then senators should make their arguments via a formal impeachment trial… not attempt some shady constitutional end-around.
Privately, several senators have expressed their concern over Grooms’ jihad against Loftis – fretting that he is only going to make Loftis a martyr and galvanize his supporters against what seems to be clear legislative overreach.
As FITSNews exclusively reported last year, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is already conducting an investigation into South Carolina’s finances as a result of the accounting irregularities. Senators should allow that inquiry proceed as opposed to stripping an independently elected statewide officer of his power simply because they don’t like him.
***
THE ORDER…
(S.C. Supreme Court)
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR…
Will Folks is the founding editor of the news outlet you are currently reading. Prior to founding FITSNews, he served as press secretary to the governor of South Carolina. He lives in the Midlands region of the state with his wife and eight children.
***
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.
1 comment
Putting aside your position on Loftis, what is your evidence for claiming the Supreme Court is so beholden to the legislature? I read a lot of criticism on this site of the court system, but there is rarely a concrete example of something improper they have done.
I disagree with a lot of judicial decisions, because they are very conservative. But then I read your criticism that they are too liberal. We have a very conservative Supreme Court, but they are not the partisan MAGA justices we see in other places. But that would seem to be a feature, not a bug.
Why don’t you write an article closing this loop? We know how you feel about the courts, but could you lay out instances where they are doing things you don’t like? Even in the article above, it sounds like they have refrained from reaching a decision until the issue is properly before them, which strikes me as a reasonable (and conservative) way to consider matters.