Litigation

?Gaveling for God? Sparks Debate

By Peter Hardin

A set of candidates seeking to unseat four incumbent Superior Court judges in San Diego County, portrayed by some critics as comprising a “religious slate,” is starting to attract coast-to-coast attention.

The candidates were selected individually by a group called Better Courts Now and have captured support from a coalition of evangelical pastors, a gun store and critics of abortion rights and marriage equality, Tim Rutten writes in a Los Angeles Times column. They are competing in a primary election set for June 8 (see earlier Gavel Grab post).

In an era when news media devote little attention to such races, and voter turnout for primaries typically is low, “small but motivated groups of extremists such as Better Courts Now can have an outsized influence,” Rutten warns. He judges the presence of this “religious slate” in the upcoming primary a “disturbing prospect.”

A commentary in the Washington Monthly, meanwhile, likens the candidates to judges “found in Iran and Saudi Arabia.” The right-wing candidates in southern California, Steven Benen says, “promise to be biased, partial jurists, basing their decisions on a religious agenda…[T]hese judicial candidates want to turn their courtrooms into a position consistent with a theocracy.”

There is true cause for concern, suggests a blog of Americans United for Separation of Church and State: “Judges and other public officials should never elevate a narrow interpretation of God?s law above the Constitution or federal and state laws.” An independent judiciary is an important safeguard in any republic, the blog adds, and “any move to choose judges based on their adherence to religion upsets that fundamental principle.”

Our friends at JudgesonMerit.org, sponsored by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, see the movement in southern California as further evidence of the need for merit selection of judges.

“Fair trials require impartial judges, which is why merit selection, not partisan elections will result in a more diverse and qualified judiciary,” they write; PMC is a partner of Justice at Stake.

Adam Skaggs of the Brennan Center for Justice, another JAS partner, similarly raises concerns about impartial courts.

“An effective way in driving policy is to try to influence who is on the courts in a state, particularly the highest court, the supreme court,” the Associated Press quotes Skaggs as saying. “It’s cause for concern because Americans expect courts to be places where people get a fair trial.” When the Los Angeles Times published the AP story, the headline stated, “Gaveling for God.”

A different viewpoint, however, comes from a commentary in The New American by Michael Tennant.

Tennant contends, “One may agree or disagree with the specific aims of the Better Courts Now organization, but one cannot deny that they have every right to field candidates for office and to attempt to unseat those judges with whom they disagree. The Left has been doing this for years by stealth. Bringing it out into the open may offer the Right the best chance of turning things around.”

A Justice at Stake publication called “Crusading Against the Courts” discusses how the courts are accountable to the law, and not to religious arguments.

Full post as published by The Gavel on June 02, 2010 (boomark / email).