|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by WILL FOLKS
***
Six years ago, this media outlet laid down the gauntlet regarding the prosecution of public corruption cases in South Carolina. In the aftermath of yet another law-breaking sheriff receiving a slap on the wrist for his crimes (sound familiar?), we called for mandatory minimum sentences for elected/appointed officials who were found guilty of betraying the public trust.
Actually, it was nine years ago – in December of 2016 – when we first called for the imposition of “real consequences for violations of the public trust,” specifically “jail time for politicians when they break the law.”
Has that standard been approached (let alone adopted) in the Palmetto State over the past decade?
Hell no…
Within the past week, two former public officials who abused their authority were allowed to walk out of court without spending a single day in jail – let alone serving the 3-6 month mandatory minimum sentences we proposed back in January of 2020 as part of a comprehensive, long-overdue ethics reform overhaul.
***
“There is one brand of justice for those with influence … and another for the rest of us,” we editorialized at the time. “If you wield power and get caught abusing it for your own ends … you can expect little more than a slap on the wrist (assuming you are ever even caught/ charged to begin with).”
“It is a license to steal, essentially,” we added.
This culture of criminal permissiveness remains the modus operandi for South Carolina’s “justice” system, which continues to coddle institutional corruption by refusing to hold those who engage in it even remotely accountable for their actions.
Absent the deterrent of jail time, “corruption will continue to run rampant in South Carolina” we predicted six years ago.
Well guess what…
Most people reading this are doubtless picturing disgraced Colleton County clerk Becky Hill right about now (and with good reason) – but there are numerous other cases crying out for accountability. For example, just last week a former state representative named Rick Martin pleaded guilty to one count of “unlawful communication” in connection with an open and shut public corruption case.
***
RELATED | BECKY HILL PLEADS GUILTY
***
A foster parent and church leader originally accused of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, Martin “use(d) his position to try to influence an investigation” by the S.C. Department of Social Services (SCDSS) into an incident at his home.
“Do you know who I am?” Martin told an agency caseworker, according to prosecutors.
“I’m going to take DSS down,” he vowed.
Martin further threatened the director of the agency – telling him to do his bidding “as fast as possible” assuming he “liked his job” and wanted to keep it. He also threatened to “devastate” SCDSS by cutting its funding in the state budget, claiming he had contacted nearly two dozen fellow lawmakers to assist him in leveraging the power of the purse toward these nefarious ends.
This is as definitional a public corruption case as you are going to see – and, thankfully, Martin’s arrest on the original charges did lead to his suspension from office and eventual defeat at the polls. But there was zero criminal accountability for this out-of-control lawmaker.
His case was strung along… and then we were all essentially told “move along, nothing to see here.”
Prosecutor Kinli Abee – who works in the office of attorney general Alan Wilson – agreed to dismiss Martin’s delinquency charge (and a misconduct in office indictment handed down after his repeated threats against public officials) in exchange for his “unlawful communication” plea. S.C. circuit court judge Jane H. Merrill then sentenced Martin to thirty days in jail on this reduced charge – but she suspended this anemic sentence pending his completion of an anger management course.
Martin left the courtroom a free man.
***
? Its your ???… shouldn't @SCHouseGOP @SCSenateGOP and @HenryMcMaster adhere to the law in spending it? BIG THANKS to the S.C. Public Interest Foundation (@SCPIF_ORG) for drawing attention to a critical transparency issue… #SCStateHouse https://t.co/AX1yCQqIXx
— FITSNews (@fitsnews) December 4, 2025
***
Representing the former lawmaker in court? Powerful lawyer-legislator Todd Rutherford, one of the many elected officials who wields disproportionate influence over who gets to sit on the bench in the Palmetto State – arguably the most galling example of how South Carolina’s system remains rigged in favor of those in charge.
Did Rutherford’s presence in court impact prosecutorial and judicial decisions? And did those decisions lead to uneven justice in Martin’s case?
The fact we even have to ask these questions is a problem… and the fact we know the answers to them shows we are nowhere near a solution.
“If citizens want real accountability when their money is stolen, when their rights are violated, when their trust is abused and when their faith in the institutions they rely upon for equal justice is betrayed, then they have to insist upon it … and that starts by making their elected leaders insist upon it,” we editorialized five years ago. “Unfortunately, too often these elected leaders are the ones profiting from the current system (and its lack of accountability).”
The only thing that’s changed over the last half-decade? The breadth, depth and cost of corruption in South Carolina.
Don’t get me wrong: it’s gratifying to see FITSNews leading a conversation about judicial integrity in the Palmetto State – especially as it relates to exposing sweetheart deals for violent criminals. Hopefully, the pressure being brought to bear on this issue by a growing reform movement will keep crime rates falling (although even one lost life due to institutional leniency is one too many).
But it’s fleeting progress based on the threat of public embarrassment, not serious structural reform. We must never content ourselves with partially addressing just one facet of our badly broken “injustice” system – especially not when widespread graft and corruption from our leaders (along with a glaring bias against business) remain every bit as institutionally ingrained as the accommodation of those who shed blood.
Lawmakers must either belatedly embrace a comprehensive ethics reform agenda – including real consequences for public corruption – or be replaced by representatives who will.
***
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.
25 comments
Interestingly, you have a photo of South Carolina’s supreme court’s building’s front entrance; and had one of the same entrance with Christmas wreath on its doors, which suggests these are recent photos.
That is interesting because the U.S. Supreme Court’s Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), held the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) applies to state court buildings.
That SC supreme court building does have an ADA-compliant ramp IN THE BACK and accessible only through that building’s parking lot which USED TO BE open to the public and USED TO HAVE at least two parking spaces dedicated to disabled members of THE PUBLIC.
But now, in a not-so-veiled bribe to SC’s SITTING Justices, the president of Richland County’s Bar Association COLLECTED DONATIONS for that parking lot to be resurfaced AND CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC.
When I asked how could I access that building, the CURRENT Clerk of that court, undoubtedly at the direction of the CURRENT sitting SC Chief Justice, put in the U.S. mail A LIE to the effect that an ADA-compliant ramp accessible to the public was being installed IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
Of course, you pretend to have the courage to attack Todd Rutherford, but not Will Lewis or Trey Gowdy, both of whom represented public defendants who got no-incarceration deals after pleading guilty to public corruption.
But will you dare hold SC’s Chief Justice to the many abuses of his authority, including forcing clerks and other judges to lie and falsify public documents to satisfy THAT SC Chief Justice’s lust for special powers.
BTW, Trey Gowdy got for Kittredge’s maternal grandfather an unprecedent post-humus presidential pardon for financial crimes after Kittredge, in his own words, “became livid” that DOJ did not process requests for post-humus pardons but someone had, again in Kittredge’s own words, “put a bug in [Kittredge’s] ear” to get a pardon for his long-ago convicted grandfather.
If you are looking to SC’s Chief Justice to fight official corruption, be informed that he ORDERS such corruption.
Let this through if you dare.
The overt corruption at the very top of the Republican Party is staggering and has been totally ignored by this website. Where the head goes, the body follows. The President and his family have seen their net worth increase by billions through payments from foreigners, deals awarded by foreign governments, payments from people seeking favors or pardons, and just general grift. All with no consequence. The Emoluments Clause is meaningless. Wherever Republicans rule, corruption will flourish. They all believe the reason you go into politics is to get rich.
“Show me a man who gets rich by being a politician, and I’ll show you a crook.” Harry Truman
Both sides are corrupt. Whether you realize it or not, we are currently in the first phase of a One World Order… When people finally wise up, stop battling with each other at the behest and on behalf of politicians and rally against the evil perpetrated by our elected officials and big corporation – we may have a chance.
“Don’t get me wrong: it’s gratifying to see FITSNews leading a conversation about judicial integrity in the Palmetto State – especially as it relates to exposing sweetheart deals for violent criminals.”
Haha – come for the stupid takes, stay for the funny jokes.
You should be disbarred,
Oh yeah? Why don’t you sign your name to that? What rule am I breaking? Or are you just mad that not everyone here is dumb enough to get all starry eyed over Will’s nonsense?
Jush’s middle name is “Snow. Was it given because of a white powder substance?
That was your response? Is everything okay? Do you need help?
Yet defense attorney make a habit of shopping for those very same judges who will be favorable to their clients instead of using their alleged legal acumen to prevail in front of whatever judge is on the bench. The majority of the defense bar are just as much a part of the problem as the JMSC. One of the biggest slowdowns in the system is the backlog of cases which is perpetuated by defense attorneys constantly asking for continuances until a “friendly” judge is on the docket. There are literally only a handful of truly skilled defense attorneys who will go before any judge without worry.
It is a myth that defense lawyers, whom I am NOT defending, can single-handedly choose a judge.
Do you know why?
Because the prosecutor (“solicitor” in South Carolina) can, or could, always refuse to call the case. An excellent Law Review Article is by then-USC-law, now Seattle-law Professor Andrew M. Seigel’s: When Prosecutors Control Criminal Court Dockets: Dispatches on History and Policy from a Land Time Forgot
AM Siegel – Am. J. Crim. L., 2004 – HeinOnline
That article was cited by South Carolina’s Supreme Court in State v. Langford, 400 SC 421, 735 SE 2d 471 (2012), which ONLY NOMINALLY ended prosecutorial control of the criminal docket in South Carolina.
“Only nominally” because, since Langford, many attempts at criminal docket management were made and, in my opinion free from false humility, failed BECAUSE they were meant MAINLY to appear to reform the system while, in reality, meant to placate prosecutors and avoid accusations of “coddling criminals.”
I experienced the viciousness of that system first-hand when Hatchet-for-Hire Heather (Weiss) brought against me KNOWN-FALSE criminal charges on 2 December 2009 for her then-supplemental payor, the City of Columbia, to gain unfair advantage in the civil lawsuit I had brought against the City.
Hatchet-for-Hire Heather kept me stringing, and even arranging for me to be held in contempt of court SOLELY FOR demanding my right to a speedy trial AND for asserting my constitutional right to defend myself WITHOUT a lawyer and my BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to speak for myself.
Thank God, AND WITHOUT A LAWYER, I first prevented a jury in a 22-26 February 2010 General Sessions trial, presided over by none other than Judge Clifton Newman, from returning a wrongful conviction of me. Then, on 13 August 2012, AGAIN WITHOUT A LAWYER, thank God, I succeeded in getting those charges against me dismissed WITH prejudice.
Between 2 December 2009 and 13 August 2012, I was FALSELY arrested four more times and PHYSICALLY abused in the process as if I were an animal.
Every time I was falsely arrested, pressure was applied on me to plead guilty to the previous arrests AND to abandon my civil lawsuit OR accept in settlement LESS than I had already spend in EXPENSES alone.
I agree that very few defense lawyers know how to successfully defend the innocent.
But, too, very few OR NO prosecutors have the integrity to REFUSE to bring criminal charges against the truly innocent.
And that is not only in South Carolina. Look at what happened to Karen Reed in Massachusetts.
The difference is: in Massachusetts, there WAS some review and accountability.
But in South Carolina, no judge, least of all Judge Clifton Newman, who saw IN HIS OWN COURT how perjuries, forgeries and fabrications were thrown at me, would defend me or call for Hatchet-for-Hire Heather (Weiss) to be held accountable.
The system would not even let me testify against Hatchet-for-Hire Heather’s thank-God-failed-anyway candidacy for judgeship in 2017.
AC – I was pretty sure I knew who you were (despite the secret code name instead of a real name) but then you make comments like this that make me realize you know very little about the legal system. I guess it shall remain a mystery…
Those are actually my initials, and I have been a part of the system for over twice as long as you and am very well versed in how the system actually works. You stick to riding around in your little advertising van and thinking you make a difference
“Snow” (Josh) relocated to SC from the far left-leaning state of Washington. Because of radical liberal ideologies it basically was transformed into an unlivable sh*hole. Perhaps, even, because of pretentious narcissistic psychopaths.
Where did you get this from, Anonymous? I appreciate how FITSNews it is to just make something up like you have done here. Did someone pay you to write your comment? Because that would really be in line with this blog.
Haha. I can tell you have me confused with someone else from your comment. I doubt you are being honest here based on what I have read from you, but in any event, you would certainly know how to get in touch with me and we can talk about your opinions on the system you claim to have been a part of for over 45 years…
Maybe I’ll buy you a beer when that POS Bixby finally gets his just punishment despite your disingenuous publicity grandstanding that only served to clog up the system. Just shows you have no regard for victims only for your narcissistic personality. You and Bixby have a lot in common in that regard.
Hard to pull that off with your anonymous moves, AC. But I will make a deal with you consistent with why I am happy to put my name to every single thing I say here.
Call me. You obviously know how to. And whatever you think about me, I honor my word and everybody knows that so you should too if you are in the system.
I will never say a word here and will never reply to a comment you make. And I will buy lunch. Let’s talk it out.
And if you aren’t up for that….probably not fair to continue responding here.
Did it occur to you that AC/Anonymous here MIGHT be FITSnews’ “source in the judicial branch” in the related story next door?
Joshua Kendrick, did it occur to you that maybe AC and Anonymous here is/are FITSNews’s “source in the judicial branch” from the related article next door?
If “the judicial branch” can hire secret source/sources to leak to FITSNews, it can hire a mole to pick a fight with you here.
So, be careful: that same judicial branch is who hired you to represent death-row inmates instead of arguing that capital punishment should be abolished as unable to fulfil any role for society other than raw vengance.
Not in criticism, but as an appeal, the issue of SOMEONE (now-proven to have been Becky Hill) having enabled media to see and copy sealed trial exhibits WAS BROUGHT TO JUDGE NEWMAN at the end of Alex Murdaugh’s two-murder trial; but Judge Clifton Newman shrugged it off as not his job.
I think judges should more jealously protect the integrity of ALL those who work in, or enter, their courts.
Judge Clifton Newman should have, within his supervisory power, ordered law enforcement to investigate the breach.
I wish, AND I APPEAL TO HIM, to still look into the perjuries used against ME in his court and to order me rendered whole as far as possible because I CONTINUE to suffer from them, 16 years later.
Judge Clifton Newman should do right by me before I die, not shrug off my concerns as “not in his lane.”
See the end of the Murdaugh transcript:
[Page 9853, lines 1-6] THE COURT: Before we adjourn, an order was entered concerning maintaining the jurors’ identity being anonymous. That order was issued and for the most part it has been complied with except for the jury leaving the courtroom yesterday — not the jury, but the defendant leaving the courtroom while the jury was still seated.
[7-10] Protecting the identity of the jurors is certainly extremely important during the course of a trial to ensure that no one makes contact with the jury or attempts to influence the jury.
[11-12] Jurors have a right to continue that privacy beyond their jury service, but they’re not obligated to do so.
[13-21] And it would not surprise me if those — if jurors choose to come forward and to speak, and they’re encouraged to do so if that is their desire. I have no problem whatsoever with the jurors unmasking themselves and speaking freely with the media because they have undergone a life-changing experience as it relates to many of them. But — and some of them are here now, and I want them to know that should anyone attempt to harass them or annoy them, please let me know and I will address the issue.
[22-25] Secondly, there’s a complaint now regarding the posting of autopsy photographs or photos that came from within the courtroom. Based on the direction of the photographs, that does not come from the audience. It [page 5894, lines 1-9] came somehow from within the well of the Court. The parties have requested an investigation of that. I have my hands full doing my job. I don’t attempt to conduct any investigations beyond the conducting of a trial, but to the extent that law enforcement decides to review that, that will be the responsibility of law enforcement.
[8] MR. WATERS: We will, Your Honor.
[9-19] THE COURT: And, of course, one of the reasons we sought to seal graphic photos is because the parties have a right to privacy and a right to those matters not being publicly disclosed. If anyone has heard about the recent settlement that Kobe Bryant — another sports analogy — Kobe Bryant’s wife just made with Los Angeles County and others out there over certain disclosures of information involving the death of Kobe Bryant, liability can be substantial, and it’s a risk for the most part of not — that’s not worth taking, so we’ll let everyone judge themselves accordingly in that regard.
[20-23] Aside from all of that, our business is done here in Colleton County, and I get to use my gavel, one of the few times during this trial, and order that court be adjourned, sine die.
24 (End of trial proceedings.)
25 — END OF TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD —
RoA_7179
They tried to kill me since 2009, and if no one cares about holding them accountable to their perjury, they will, God forbid, get me eliminated by next week. I was never wrong before about the perjurers; and I am not wrong now in appealing for intervention before it is too late.
And this is the exchange between Judge Clifton Newman and me on 28 December 2018:
Either you will tolerate perjury or you will not. And that, again, Judge, the Honorable Judge
Clifton Newman, it happened in your court. And that’s something that I began researching immediately after the jury deadlocked. And I think, I hope, that the clerk gave Your Honor that annotated transcript.
THE COURT: Yes. Well, Dr. Faltas, the Court does not investigate perjury. The Court does not —
MS. FALTAS: Then refer me to another solicitor, because —
THE COURT: The Court does not prosecute perjury. If — any person who wished to have anyone investigated for any crime, can pursue that through law enforcement channels who initiate warrants. I’m a judge and not a police officer, and I do not issue orders of arrest, other than as a result of a court contempt proceeding or something of that nature.
But —
MS. FALTAS: Except, Your Honor, that — I’m sorry to interrupt.
THE COURT: And, in addition to that, I’m not here today to entertain any — your perjury case or case of perjury against anyone else. I’m here because an emergency motion was filed seeking to have Mr. Truluck relieved as counsel and seeking to have you given the right to represent yourself. And this hearing will be limited to those two things.
MS. FALTAS: Correct. I am giving you the background —
THE COURT: Well, I’ve heard the background sufficient for me to entertain those two motions. But to —
MS. FALTAS: All right. But —
THE COURT: But to expect me to hear evidence of perjury of a case from years ago, that’s beyond the scope of what I’m willing to entertain this morning.
MS. FALTAS: Correct. I appreciate that. But I also appreciate that you let me make my record.
Lets see whhat crooked skanks fall fists, starting next year.
Its time.
Find for yourself the link to “A Medal from Truman, a Pardon from Trump,” where you can hear John Kittredge’s own voice saying how people put “a bug in [his] ear” and he became “livid” when DoJ initially resisted that “bug” because, apparently FITS does not let through comments with links.
But here is what a media outlet in South DAKOTA wrote about Kittredge’s abuse of his position:
‘Why don’t you do something about that?’
As far as his grandson John Kittredge knows, Jeffries never appealed his conviction or asked for a pardon.
“And General Electric wanted to appeal and he said no,” Kittredge said. “He just didn’t want to deal with it. He did not want an appeal, so he paid the $2,500 fine, and that was it.”
About seven decades later, at an American Society for Metals event to honor Jeffries’ scientific legacy, Kittredge said the conversation turned to the criminal conviction.
“And then someone said, ‘Why don’t you do something about that? People that do really bad things get a pardon.’ And it just put the bug in my ear.”
Kittredge was in a position to do something. He’s a justice of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, appointed by the state’s Republican Legislature.
After Republican Donald Trump won the White House, Kittredge wrote a letter to the federal Office of the Pardon Attorney.
“The day they got it, they sent me a form email that we do not grant posthumous pardons,” Kittredge said. “And I was livid.”
He knew some presidents had overruled the policy. So he contacted his Republican U.S. senator, Lindsey Graham, and his Republican U.S. representative, Trey Gowdy.
“They jumped on board,” Kittredge said. “And they started writing letters to the counsel at the White House to please consider this, please look at this.”
Trump issued a full posthumous pardon to Zay Jeffries in October 2019.
Jeffries is one of only six people in history to receive a posthumous pardon from a president. Four of those pardons were granted by Trump.
Conviction remains on record
Trump’s pardon message said Jeffries was convicted because of a legal precedent that did not exist when the prosecution began – in other words, a technicality.
Spencer Weber Waller is an antitrust expert at Loyola University Chicago. He does not agree with that characterization of Jeffries’ case. Waller said Jeffries was convicted on precedent that was well-established at the time.
And Waller said the crimes Jeffries committed are viewed more seriously today.
“It’s been a felony since the mid-’70s, and if he had been convicted today, he almost certainly would have done substantial jail time, the average being in the two-year range,” Waller said, “and obviously the fine in modern times would be much more substantial.”
Waller does appreciate Jeffries’ redeeming qualities.
“He sounds like an interesting guy,” Waller said. “It’s just that he was a convicted price fixer.”
And that’s something even a presidential pardon does not change.
When Jean Toal was SC Chief Justice, I often wrote on this outlet (then in its infancy) that I am the child who cried, “The Emperor had NO Clothes.”
Now that John Kittredge is SC Chief Justice, I want to to offer him a LOVING cloak to cover the nakedness of his obsessive personality, poor judgment, and abuse of authority. But I fear he would roll that cloak into a noose around my neck and hang from it because (remember?) he INCARCERATED ME solely because I ALLEGEDLY used email and phone to inquire about why my submissions were not filed, or mis-filed, WHEN THE COURTHOUSES WERE CLOSED due to CoViD-19 and there were FORMAL ORDERS that even pro se parties could file by email.
Oh, and in the order for my incarceration, Kittredge, the grandson of a scientist, called it “undeserved mercy” for him to require me to serve only 10 days of a six-month sentence because, AMONG MY HORRIFYING SINS IN KITTREDGE’S EYES, is that I was THE FIRST in South Carolina to write that CoViD-19 is airborne and that Governor McMaster’s press conference to the contrary and “just wash your hands” is wrong.
Don’t take my word, take the record, and ask Kittredge why he hides that shameful record of his PHYSICAL torture of me (I was struck with atrial fibrillation during that “undeserved mercy” by Kittredge yet was not given an early medical release) by NOT allowing SC Appellate Case 2021-000815 to appear on C-Track when other Original Jurisdiction cases now do.
BTW, John Few was and remains Kittredge’s enabler in all that even though the two men almost can’t stand each other.
Think about this from the South Carolina Daily Gazette’s 6 March 2024 article “Meet John Kittredge, SC’s Next Chief Justice”:
Despite striking a stoic tone on the bench, friends of the veteran justice also say he has “a wicked sense of humor,” one that has the father of three veering into the dad-joke realm.
A favorite bit of his is about a camping trip with Simmons. When a bear appeared in their campsite and Kittredge began lacing up his sneakers, Simmons told him he wouldn’t be able to outrun a bear.
“Chuck, I don’t have to outrun a bear,” the line goes. “I just have to outrun you.”
That CANNOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE, first, because neither Simmons nor Kittredge was mauled by that imaginary bear; and next because that “line” is decades, if not centuries, older than Simmons and Kittredge and is said in different languages in different places of the world.
What is blatantly true is that Kittredge demand sycophancy and lies from his lower judges and staff under penalty of firing the latter who serve at his will and pleasure (stick) or promoting them WITHOUT COMPETITIVE APPLICATION (carrot).
Indeed, a necessary step in fighting public corruption is stripping SC’s Chief Justice from all administrative powers over the minimum necessary to run jurists’ chambers.
If anything should be under the governor, it is not the selection of judges, but the office of court administration.
It is so in the federal system, under the General Services Administration, not the federal judiciary.
SC DOGE, are you listening?
Has any one ever audited or checked what the clerks of SC courts, from municipal courts to the supreme court, do with the fines and filing fees?
I might be held in contempt of court if I asked; but perhaps SC DOGE’s head is too rich to suffer such fate.
FITS’s “source” or “sources” in “the judicial branch” must have spoken to Will about me, which explains why he did not let my comment on that other article through. But here it is again:
“‘Some senators have adopted a retaliatory posture,’ a judicial branch source confirmed to FITSNews.
The source declined to name any of the senators allegedly engaged in retaliatory behavior, but the inter-branch battle was said to have included specific threats against the judiciary’s budget – and individual justices.”
“[A] judicial branch source confirmed to FITSNews”?
What business does the “judicial branch” have having its “source” talk on background to FITSNews?
Does the “judicial branch” have a secret lobbyist contacting media and spreading “the judicial branch’s” new line of victimhood?
If that “source” or those “sources” (in the plural as the title of your article says) is/are actual judges, (s)he/they should be IMPEACHED for engaging in political activity to benefit themselves.
If that “source” or those “sources” are paid staffers, they should be FIRED for engaging in lobbying, which (I assume) is not in their job description.
That decision striking the legislative pay raise down was not a heroic, principled one but a cynical pick of a low-hanging fruit.
That very SC supreme court was not so protective of public money when it received a 35% increase in its base salaries. Nor is it so protective of public money when it gives additional pay to retired judges to hold court when the judges in regular active service are sitting around gossiping among themselves instead of deciding cases.
Want true separation of powers?
Then take SC’s office of court administration from under SC’s chief justice’s control and put it under the governor’s control where it belongs and where it is all other states and in the federal government.
The judiciary’s role is to decide cases or controversies properly before it, not to play with money and set budgets. Budgeting is an executive, not judicial, role.
It is SC’s judiciary which is intruding on the other two branches, not the reverse.
Also, those abortion decisions were a two-act play. Everyone knew that, in the end, SC will have a law that neither respects the integrity of human life (which begins at fertilization) nor gives full privacy rights to people. Everyone knew that, in the end, SC will have an abortion law that is a political compromise.
Few’s decisions in that case were a power play and a waste of time. He was simply flexing his verbal muscles and making the legislature redo its homework or go to the corner of the class.
Want real judicial reform?
Then start by naming the Justices’ law clerks and the members of staff counsel and put the names of those secret lawyers who really decide the cases, specially the unpublished/unargued ones.
Heck! Do we even know how those law clerks/staff counsel are hired? Is it merit or nepotism?
Who says that Jay Lucas or Ralph Anderson, III will not make a better Justice than John Few?