Archive for June, 2010

The Missouri Plan; non-partisan method of selecting judges (i.e. select by merit; no elections)

Wednesday, June 30th, 2010

The Missouri Bar has asked all of its members to speak about the need for protecting the impartiality of the judiciary.  Below are 6 talking points I’ve copy/pasted from www.mobar.org.   My 2 cents is I hate politicians, and I surely don’t want judges acting like them…

  • The Non-Partisan Court Plan works. It provides a proven method of selecting judicial applicants based on merit and ability. Before judicial retention elections are held, Missouri lawyers anonymously rate all non-partisan judges who will be standing for retention. The evaluations––which are widely distributed to the public––consistently indicate that judges who pass the rigorous screening process of the judicial retention selection committee make excellent judges.
  • Since being introduced in Missouri, the Plan has become a model for the nation. More than 30 other states have adopted parts of the Non-Partisan Court Plan to improve their court systems. When states reform the way judges are elected, they invariably adopt elements of the Non-Partisan Court Plan.
  • The Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan engenders public confidence in the courts.  Highly qualified applicants are more willing to apply for openings on the bench under merit selection because they want a career based on their understanding of law, not based on politics.   Lawyers who are selected by judicial commissions have the necessary qualifications to serve as judges. Professional qualifications are emphasized and political credentials are de-emphasized.  Judges chosen under the Non-Partisan Court Plan don’t find themselves presiding over cases brought by attorneys who gave them campaign contributions.
  • Increasingly, states that elect their appellate level judges are seeing judges rely on negative advertising and multi-million dollar judicial campaigns. Not only does this convey a negative image of the judiciary, but it also gives the impression that a seat on a state’s high court is for sale. The ads used in the Illinois Supreme Court race are a prime example of the extremely negative portrayal of a state court system that relies on partisan election of appellate judges.
  • Differences of opinion about individual decisions will always exist. The business community benefits where the rule of law is predictable. The Missouri Plan provides for stability, continuity and promotes public confidence in the judiciary.
  • Non-partisan judges are accountable to the public through retention elections.

United States Supreme Court clarifies 2nd amendment right to guns

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010

History Lesson:  In the beginning of building our nation, the bill of rights (the first ten amendments to our constitution) only applied against the federal government; i.e. your constitutional rights did not protect you against actions by state government.  After the 14th amendment was ratified, courts interpreted that amendment to mean some, but not all, of our constitutional protections from the bill of rights applied to protect individuals from state action.

Recently, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court declared that “the 2nd amendment right is fully applicable to the states”.  Accordingly, the Court remanded the case down to a lower appeals court with instructions that essentially require the lower court to stike down a Chicago law that banned handguns outright.

While this is a victory for gun rights supporters, there are still a ton of valid enforceable federal, state, and local laws regulating guns that are currently uneffected by this ruling.  In most cases, if the government can argue that the gun law is “reasonable”, the gun law will be upheld.  With this Chicago case, what was unreasonable was banning the handguns outright; had Chicago limited its handgun bans to public buildings or other specific locations, it would likely have survived and been enforced by the Supreme Court.

United States Supreme Court declares right to silence must be asserted.

Thursday, June 3rd, 2010

A recent Supreme Court case (Berghuis v. Thompkins) clarified a  suspect’s right to silence.  What you need to know if you are being questioned by a police officer and you wish to remain silent: you must tell the officer you wish to remain silent.

As a general reminder, if you are questioned by the police in a situation where you are not free to get up and go about your business, when you say the magic words “I want to speak to an attorney” the police must stop their custodial interrogation.