Powerful S.C. Senator Calls Out ‘Legislative Influence’ In Supreme Court Race

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

by WILL FOLKS

***

One of the most status quo members of the South Carolina General Assembly has surprisingly come out in opposition to the controversial nomination of a status quo former politician seeking to serve on the S.C. supreme court.

Well, to be clear, the politician hasn’t specifically said he will vote against the nominee in question – but he did unambiguously castigate the glaringly obvious “perception” that state lawmakers are using his nomination to wield undue influence over what should be an independent judiciary.

Which is exactly what they’re doing… and what they’ve done for decades.

South Carolina is one of only two states in America in which lawmakers elect judges. It’s also the only state in which lawmakers wield exclusive control over which candidates get to run for the bench, something reformers like Rom Reddy are eager to change given the rampant corruption this system has invited.

And the ensuing evaporation of public trust accompanying this rampant corruption…

Senator Luke Rankin – vice-chairman of the powerful but notoriously scandal-scarred S.C. Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) – issued a statement this week addressing the evaporating trust in connection with the release of his panel’s report (.pdf) on judicial candidate qualifications.

***

Rankin’s remarks (.pdf) related to the impending S.C. supreme court race between incumbent associate justice John Few and former S.C. House of Representatives speaker Jay Lucas shocked many Palmetto political observers.

By way of background, lawmakers are upset at Few for forcing them to rewrite a controversial abortion statute – insisting they go back to the drawing board and draft a constitutional law. That anger has manifested itself in the candidacy of Lucas, who spent eight years as speaker of the S.C. House from 2014-2022.

Lucas is viewed as a reliable legislative ally – a check against what lawmakers perceive to be a renewed independent streak coming out of the courts.

“This is an opportunity to settle scores – not to mention a chance to replace an independent jurist with one who will do lawyer-legislators’ bidding,” I noted earlier this year. “More ominously, Lucas’ election would send an unambiguous message to any judicial candidate who dares defy the legislature on any issue: dissent will not be tolerated.”

“If they take him out, that’s the end of judicial independence in South Carolina,” one prominent political attorney familiar with the inner workings of the judicial selection process told us. “Every judge will be afraid that if they issue a correct, but politically unpopular, opinion they will voted out.”

That is not only accurate, it is the clear intention behind the legislature’s campaign to put Lucas on the bench.

***

RELATED | SUPREME COURT BECOMES POLITICAL SPOILS SYSTEM

***

To his credit, Rankin addressed this perception head-on in his remarks accompanying the candidate qualifications report.

While praising Lucas’ for his “decades of public service,” he noted South Carolinians must have “confidence in both the competence and impartiality of those who will serve.”

“Only when litigants believe that a judge is professionally prepared and academically grounded, and only when they trust a judge will act without bias, can the judgments of our courts be accepted,” Rankin wrote. “This matters deeply because our legal system depends on citizens’ willingness to submit to and respect judicial decisions.”

Rankin proceeded to note that Lucas has “no prior judicial service and lacks sustained or significant appellate practice.”

“I have no doubt that he possesses the intellect and work ethic to perform the duties of a justice,” Rankin wrote. “My concern instead is how his background may be perceived by the citizens who must live with his rulings. Public confidence is fragile, and perception can matter as much as or more than reality.”

Actually, asserting that public confidence in South Carolina’s judicial branch is “fragile” at the moment is a charitable assessment.

“Non-existent” would be more apt…

***

***

Continuing to not mince words, Rankin called out Lucas’ “lack of judicial service and his scant appellate experience” in the context of the current political climate – one in which he correctly noted “the motives and actions of the judiciary are scrutinized more than ever.”

As well they should be…

“I am concerned that his election may appear to be driven by legislative influence,” Rankin wrote, adding that while he believed Lucas would “never compromise his ethics,” the legitimacy of his judgments could be called into question by virtue of questions surrounding his “independence.”

“Placing on our highest court a candidate whose record presents few objective indicators of judicial readiness risks further inflaming skepticism about the process and about the justice our courts administer every day,” Rankin wrote.

In addition to directly challenging Lucas’ nomination – and the troubling context in which it is being advanced – Rankin also specifically noted how the 68-year-old Columbia native has gone on the record stating “he does not believe the mandatory judicial retirement age of 72 applies to him.”

“While he may ultimately be correct as a matter of law, the manner in which he asserted the statute does not apply to him only heightens my unease,” Rankin wrote. “It reinforces the possible perception that his candidacy and any future service on the court may be treated differently because he is a former legislator. Even the appearance that a judge believes he is exempt from the rules that govern others threatens public confidence in the fairness and uniformity of our judicial system.”

***

NEW LIVE SHOW WEDNESDAYS @ 7:00 P.M.

***

Lucas was a fiscally liberal, pro-status quo legislative leader – which makes him not at all dissimilar to other former lawmakers previously installed on the bench by the General Assembly. In years past, “Republican” lawmakers have placed numerous far left Democrats to key positions within the judiciary – including former S.C. chief justices Jean Toal and Donald Beatty. Both Toal and Beatty were Democrat lawmakers prior to becoming judges, and both predictably ran the judicial branch in a manner befitting those ideological moorings – materially eroding competitiveness, liberty and public safety in the process.

Lucas is likely to vote in a similar vein, whereas Few has been a rare independent voice on the court.

Rankin, a “former” Democrat, has rarely been praised on these pages. More often than not, in fact, our media outlet has excoriated him for his left-of-center leanings – and the damage his status quo ideology has done to the Palmetto State. In this instance, however, he is absolutely correct to raise these concerns.

“A justice of the Supreme Court must be more than qualified,” Rankin concluded. “He must present credentials and an appearance of impartiality that are beyond reproach.”

We concur…

***

THE STATEMENT…

(SCJMSC)

***

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.