Sent on behalf of Ronald Niemala:
Judicial Activists -
GEORGE
SOROS WANTS TO CONTROL THE COURTS THROUGH RETENTION ELECTIONS. Just
one more reason we need to stop HF1666 SF1465, the Quie Amendment,
Missouri Plan and anything similar from being enacted in Minnesota. We
already have Dayton and Richie…..do we needed an “all appointed
judiciary” as well?
Please read below from FOX News:
Billionaire
George Soros spends tens of millions each year supporting a range of
liberal social and political causes, from drug legalization to
immigration reform to gay marriage to abolishing the death penalty.
But a less well-known Soros priority -- replacing elections for
judges with selection-by-committee -- now has critics accusing him of
trying to stack the courts.
Most non-federal
judges around the country are selected by voters in elections. But some
states use a process called “merit selection” in which a committee –
often made up of lawyers – appoints judges to the bench instead.
Soros has spent several million dollars in the past
decade in an attempt to get more states to scrap elections and adopt the
merit method. Supporters say it would allow judges to focus on
interpreting the law rather than on raising campaign funds and winning
elections.
“Merit selection would end the money race and get
judges out of the fundraising business,” Lynn Marks, executive director
of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts -- a group that has received money
from Soros’ Open Society Institute -- told FoxNews.com.
But critics say that if judges are picked by
committee -- often, a committee of lawyers -- that will give left-wing
judges the upper hand.
“The left can’t get
their agenda through the legislatures anymore … so they think they can
get their agenda through by taking over the courts,” attorney Colleen
Pero, author of a new report titled "Hijacking Justice," told
FoxNews.com.
Pero’s report found that Soros, through his Open
Society Institute fund, has given $45 million over the last decade to “a
campaign to reshape the judiciary.” But that number is hotly contested
by Justice at Stake, the group that got the most Soros money.
“It’s a horrendously bogus distortion of numbers,”
Charlie Hall, a spokesman for Justice at Stake, told FoxNews.com. Hall
said the $45 million figure included groups that dealt with legal issues
but had no position on merit selection. He added that he could only
identify $2 million from Soros that went to groups that actively support
replacing elections with “merit selection.”
In an analysis of the Open Society Institute's tax
returns from the last ten years, FoxNews.com found more than $5 million
was explicitly earmarked for projects about either "merit selection" or
"judicial selection."
For example, OSI reported giving $90,000 to
Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts in 2007 to "expand and grow a coalition
in support of merit selection." It also reported giving $50,000 to
Justice at Stake in 2006 to support "public education regarding merit
selection."
OSI gave another $7 million-plus to Justice at
Stake, or to partner organizations with specific directions to support
JAS's activities.
Some recipients of Soros'
money were eager to defend “merit selection,” and said they only wished
Soros would give more money to the cause. "We are very grateful for
their support of our efforts," Marks said. Her group received more than
$500,000 over the last decade, but has not received money from OSI since
2008.
Elections, she added, discourage competent lawyers
from becoming judges just because they aren’t good politicians. “They
don't put their name in for nominations because they think they don't
have the political connections or access to dollars.”
And judges, she said, should be kept apart from
political forces. “Judges should resolve disputes based on evidence --
they're not supposed to be responsive to public pressure.”
But Pero pointed to a study by prominent law professors that found
elected judges were, if anything, more independent and took on larger
workloads than judges appointed by committee.
"We
began this project with the assumption that the data would demonstrate
that appointed judges are better than elected judges," the authors note,
adding that after looking at their result: "It may be that elected
judges are, indeed, superior to appointed judges."
And, Pero says, “merit selection” is inherently undemocratic.
"It would be a handful lawyers who would select judges… with elections, the people actually have a say."
Marks said it is wrong to call the merit selection un-democratic.
"Merit
selection requires a change in the Constitution, so a bill must... go
before the public. So when people say, ‘oh, you're changing the way we
vote’ -- yes, but only if the people want to change the way we vote."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/27/critics-say-soros-trying-to-stack-courts/#ixzz1RR8fhmQw
And remember to contact these
representatives who are in favor of "retention elections" and tell them
that YOU ARE OPPOSED TO RETENTION ELECTIONS. Call them...Email
them...write a letter...voice your opinion about TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHT
TO VOTE JUDGES INTO OFFICE. Your help will help in stopping this action
from proceeding further. ACT NOW!
CALL THEM NOW!
REP. JENIFER LOON 42B - Email rep.jenifer.loon@house.mn 651-296-7449
REP. PAT MAZOROL 41B – Email rep.pat.mazorol@house.mn 651-296-7803
REP. MIKE BEARD 35A – Email rep.mike.beard@house.mn 651-296-8872
REP. CAROL MCFARLANE 53B – Email rep.carol.mcfarlane@house.mn 651-296-5363
REP. TIM SANDERS 51A - Email rep.tim.sanders@house.mn 651-296-4226
REP. TIM KELLY 28A – Email rep.tim.kelly@house.mn 651-296-8635
REP. JOE SCHOMACKER 22A – Email rep.joe.schomacker@house.mn 651-296-5505
SEN. DOUG MAGNUS SD22 – Email sen.doug.magnus@senate.mn 651-296-5650
SEN. GEN OLSON SD33 – Email sen.gen.olson@senate.mn 651-296-1282
REP. KING BANAIAN 15B - Email rep.king.banaian@house.mn 651-296-6612
Ronald Niemala
Member MNGOP Judicial Chairs Committee
When trust matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment