|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by ROM REDDY
***
There is a reason our Founders spent so much time debating the structure of government. They understood something we have forgotten in South Carolina. Power must never be concentrated in the hands of one group because human nature itself cannot be trusted with unchecked authority. The Founders had lived under a king who combined legislative, executive, and judicial powers into a single throne. They saw firsthand how easily that system slipped into tyranny. Their answer was simple and brilliant. Separate the powers. Divide authority among three branches. Allow no one to hold control over another. That structure protects the citizen because ambition checks ambition and government remains accountable.
Separation of powers is not an academic idea. It is the shield that protects your rights. It is the only reason we can call ourselves a free people. When one branch controls another, you no longer have a constitutional republic. You have a political machine pretending to be one.
And that brings us to the crisis here in South Carolina.
***
In our state, the Legislature controls the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC). This is the small group that selects and reappoints every judge in South Carolina. Supreme Court judges, circuit judges, family court judges, all of them. Lawyer legislators dominate the JMSC. They pick the judges. Then they practice in front of the same judges they pick. This is not separation of powers. This is not checks and balances. This is not constitutional government. This is a closed loop of political insiders controlling the branch that is supposed to serve as a check on them.
The Constitution of South Carolina could not be clearer. Article 1 Section 8 states that the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the government shall forever remain separate and distinct, and no person exercising the functions of one branch shall assume the duties of another. Yet that is exactly what is happening. The Legislature is selecting judges, and many of the individuals involved have direct personal and professional interests in the outcomes of those courts.
This system violates the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. It creates conflicts of interest that would never be tolerated in any private sector setting. It concentrates power in one branch and weakens the ability of the judiciary to stand as a fair and independent defender of the Constitution. And the people of this state have paid the price. Families in family court have paid the price. Small business owners have paid the price. Anyone who has ever stood before a system that was never designed to be neutral has paid the price.
This is why judicial reform matters. This is why our bill is essential. It is not about personalities or politics. It is about restoring the original design of our government. Our bill removes legislative control of the JMSC and returns the process to the separation of powers the Founders envisioned. The executive branch appoints the JMSC. The legislative branch approves or rejects judicial recommendations from that commission. One branch recommends. Another approves. Each branch does its job and nothing more.
***
RELATED | $3.5 BILLION ERROR WAS ONLY THE SMOKE
***
This is exactly what our federal system requires. It is exactly what James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the framers of the Constitution intended. They understood that no group of people, no matter how well intentioned, should be allowed to control both the creation of laws and the selection of the judges who interpret them.
We must correct this violation of the Constitution. We must restore checks and balances. We must return power to the citizen and take it away from the insiders who have been benefiting from this system for decades.
We do this not because it is politically convenient, but because it is morally necessary. The separation of powers is the foundation of a free society. If we lose that, we lose everything.
Stand with us. Fight for the Constitution. Demand judicial reform now. It is time to restore the balance that our Founders gave us and make South Carolina a state where the citizen holds the power and the government serves at the consent of the governed.
Click here and tell your legislators to join us.
Amen.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR…
Rom Reddy, a businessman from Isle of Palms, S.C., is the founder of the DOGE SC movement.
***
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.
2 comments
Sir: No one can seriously argue against the proposition that a professional and independent judiciary is indispensable to the proper functioning of a healthy republic. And certainly, if there are ways to advance the interests of professionalism and independence in the selection of our judiciary, then we ought to consider them. With sincere respect, the DOGESC proposal does not seem to do that.
The purpose of JMSC is to provide a level of civil-service vetting among candidates for judicial office to facilitate the Legislature’s responsibility to elect qualified members of our Bar to comprise our judiciary. Frankly, despite how JMSC has been publicly maligned, my perspective is that they have done a very good job over its history.
In any event, under the most recent amendment to JMSC, it is presently comprised of 4 members appointed by the House, 4 by the Senate, and 4 by the Governor. In short, each of the political branches presently has representation on JMSC, which is important, since only the candidates nominated by JMSC are eligible to be voted on by the Legislature. The DOGESC proposal would create a JMSC that is filled entirely by political appointees of the Governor. I understand the proposal disqualifies those who have “individually contributed” to the Governor’s campaign. But obviously, this exclusion would not apply those who contributed to the Governor’s campaign through a company, or a law firm, or through a PAC.
Regardless, it seems the central criticism of DOGESC is that the current environment creates a patronage system between members of JMSC and those seeking judicial office. That may be a fair criticism, but the situation does not improve by making the Governor the beneficiary of patronage instead of the Legislature.
I am also troubled by the lack of qualifications suggested by the DOGESC proposal. It merely states that the Governor may appoint 12 people, 8 of which must be “members of the Bar in good standing” (without any requirement on years of practice), and up to 4 may be law enforcement professionals (again, without any clarity as to what this means or what experience is required). As a result, this bill could tolerate the Governor appointing 12 newly minted lawyers and sheriff’s deputies to JMSC, who would have exclusive control over which candidates get elevated to the General Assembly for a vote. I fail to see how, under this scenario, JMSC would be little more than a puppet of the Governor, or how the interests of promoting a professional and independent judiciary are advanced.
As a final observation, I am stunned that this bill would be sponsored by any member of the Senate. It is well-known that judicial seats are generally won or lost on the House floor, which already limits the Senate’s influence. Presently, the Senate has at least an equal voice on JMSC; but under the DOGESC proposal, they lose that.
In sum, in my estimation, the General Assembly has everything to lose under the DOGESC proposal and nothing to gain, and I do not see with any clarity how this modification improves the judiciary or the intersection of the people of this State with its justice system.
Mr Buckingham, I notice you are a lawyer. Therefore, please familiarize yourself with article 1 section 8 of the constitution. Then merely discuss how lawyer legislators sitting on JMSC appointing judges they practice in front of complies with the constitution. So, this is not a matter of the opinion of another lawyer like yourself or a citizen like me. It is merely compliance with the constitution that the legislators swore to uphold with their hand on the Bible. As far as the executive branch appointing members, citizens have the opportunity every 4 years to vote the Governor out if he is corrupt. Our system calls for checks and balances to offset potential corruption. There is no system in the world that guarantees there will never be corruption. However, the power is with the people to correct it. Today if the people do not like how the lawyer legislators have installed their own on JMSC, they do not have the power to change the system. Bottom line, you don’t get to pick and choose what parts of the constitution you comply with which you should know as a lawyer, sir. Rom Reddy