In what's become a routine fixture of Republican legislators faced with the horror of a Democratic governor taking office, North Carolina legislators have rushed through a bill that strips the incoming governor of various powers. This one is a particular beauty:
Under another section of the bill, the governor must fill any vacancies on the state’s top courts with appointees recommended by the political party of the departing judge. That will prevent Stein from appointing Democrats to fill future openings on the state Supreme Court, where Republicans hold a majority.
I'm not going to pretend to be shocked by this. Nothing Republicans do in the name of naked power grabs surprises me anymore. But seriously? Cementing in place a Republican Supreme Court majority for all time? I never want to hear another word from Republicans about court packing in my life.
Aren't Supreme Court Justices in NC elected like in other states? If there's a vacancy, just don't fill it. Then when the term is up voters will have a chance to install the Justice that they choose.
Indeed, with 8-year terms, these partisan appointments are not permanent. It's not like the makeup of the current court is locked by statute.
They're assigning the filling of vacancies to an office they did win.
What's to stop the new governor-elect, Josh Stein, a Democrat, from appointing, say, an appellate judge who used to be a Democrat but has since become a Republican? Party affiliation is not exactly a permanent thing. Anyone can change their registration anytime. You never know when a judge might wake up one day and see things differently.
That might not be in the spirit of the new law, but we're past that, right?
Other such laws, when you look close, have language about that. Instead of "a Republican" it'll say something like "a nominee chosen by the governing committee of the state Republican party" or some such.
But when talking about the law, people will simply say "a Republican" as shorthand. This shouldn't be taken to mean that it's an easy thing to defeat with one weird trick.
They didn't even do that shorthand this time, the post clearly says "appointees recommended by the political party".
If the GOP submits a list with the name Mark Robinson, I suggest the governor appoint the retired plumber in Greensboro named Mark Robinson because that guy will do a better job.
Isn't it an absurdity that a Judge (let alone a supreme court judge) is assumed to HAVE a political party.
The American political system is broken beyond repair by bad faith.
The law says that grandees of the party of the vacant justice's party give the governor a list. There goes your party switcher.
If the judges are elected and if the new appointee only finishes the term and does not get a new full term there is no injustice. Why exactly should a governor get to get to replace the people's choice with his own preference?
If the new judge gets a new term then it could be a perpetuation of that party's control, provided that judges are willing to resign before the end of their term, and that the rule applies to resignations and not just deaths.
At this point there is not much point in continuing to pretend that judge appointments are not political.
The more I look at this, the more it seems like a tempest in a teapot. How often does a vacancy occur? The replacement only gets to complete the term, so there isn't an extension of party control.
The problem here is more one of rank hypocrisy. Is there any doubt that if the situation were reversed, a Republican governor would jump at the chance to fill a Democratic vacancy with a Republican?
Are the elections to the NC Supreme Court state-wide, or districted as it were?
Surely there's something in the United States Constitution—if not North Carolina's—that prohibits this? I hope?
Uh lol no
Do we no longer have to pretend that Republican-appointed judges are not just political hacks?
I would question the output of any judge who allows politics to color their decisions.
I thought we stopped pretending that 20 years ago.
"But seriously? Cementing in place a Republican Supreme Court majority for all time? "
Wait till the House and the Senate follow suit.
That’s one of the first laws I’ve ever seen that is explicit about political party. Interesting.
There are precedents for filling some elected positions. In my state, the party that held the seat can nominate the replacement.
Many states have such restrictions on Senate replacements.
This is quite common for elected positions.
The will of the voters should not be undermined just because someone they elected died. Short of having "vice justices" appointing someone nominated by the dead person's political party seems the best way to do that.
Do you believe that about dead Democrats' positions, MoFo?
Sure. For example, don't you think that if a House member dies in any state it makes sense for the party that he represents to nominate his replacement to the governor?
Judges don't run for election to gain the spot. They're appointed and then voted to be retained or not later.
So no, no one 'voted' for them the first four years - they voted for the Governor.
Of course someone who spouts bigoted nonsense in our threads constantly would spout nonsense about this.
Sigh... why do people bother to tell such transparent lies on the Internet when it takes all of 10 seconds to debunk them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Supreme_Court
The justices of the North Carolina Supreme Court are elected, not appointed. So, Yes, they were voted on by North Carolinians
Well, Representatives aren't appointed by governors, they have to run in a "Special Election". So it's a moot point you made. Senators in MOST states can be appointed by the governor. A few require an election.
Most of the states which have governor appointments specify that the replacement must be of the party to which the vacant incumbent was a member.
Did you EVER want to hear a single word from Republicans about anything to do with the law?
They've always been crooks, charlatans, and trolls.
It was a predictable consequence of electing judges that judges would come to be identified by their partisan loyalties. It was a predictable consequence of labelling judges Democrats or Republicans that legislatures would take steps to ensure their party's judges remained in the majority.
The obvious solution is to stop electing judges and adopt an alternative method of appointment which avoids them being seen as partisan hacks. The fact that neither party supports this illustrates the degradation of democratic norms in America.
Judges have always been partisan, though.
The problem is somewhere we stopped actually applying ethics rules... or rather, Republicans stopped applying ethics rules.
"If we just pretend judges aren't partisan and hide important information about judges from the citizens then everything will be better" seems to me to be a pretty firm 'degradation' itself......
One party supports the rule of law and that the law matters, even when the law doesn't agree with them.
The other party doesn't.
You're equating those two, and you shouldn't.
"The obvious solution is to stop electing judges and adopt an alternative method of appointment which avoids them being seen as partisan hacks."
Sounds good in theory, but I've never seen a system that is blind to political leaning.
If the North Carolina Constitution gives the Governor the authority to appoint the successor to a deceased jurist, it probably would take a Constitutional Amendment to add that restriction and have it be effective. Separation of Powers doctrine typically limits what the Legislature can do to constrain "core" Executive branch authorities.
That's not to say that the Leg might pass such a proposed Amendment, and the citizens of North Carolina would ratify it, cementing into the NC Constitution. But I doubt simple legislation would stand up in court.
Justices are wary of attempts to push them around.
The problem, of course, is that the determination that an amendment is necessary and that the law isn't sufficient would have to be made by.......the very Republican judges on the NC Supreme Court that the law is specifically written to benefit. An EXTREMELY corrupt batch of judges, I might add.
I do wonder what would happen if Stein just ignored it and either refused to name a replacement or straight up named a Dem replacement......
Yes, that's possibly a counter-veiling interest that they would have, perhaps tempting them to abase their own independence. But you might be surprised.
The judiciary is just another tool of oppression. Democrats need to come to grips with the idea that government is the enemy.
The judiciary has, on the whole, been a tool of oppression for the entire history of the nation. That perception changed in our lifetime because of the fluke Warren court. The judiciary is busy spending down the very last bits of the moral authority that was banked in that brief era.
The government is the only countervailing power we have to the oligopoly. Are you talking about some specific government, or government in general. If it is the latter then I can never agree. The problem is your broke system. The alternative is tyranny.
A friendly reminder that Dems won all of the major statewide races (Gov, Lt. Gov, Attorney General) in this year's election, but the non-statewide races have been gerrymandered to ridiculous levels. All of which sets the stage for stuff like this.
Am I right that they are sliding this in during a lame duck session, because the next NC Congress won't have a veto-proof majority?
Yes, you are exactly right. The leader on this, Tim Moore, has just been elected to Congress.
The solution is simple: the governor selects a replacement, who then switches parties, and is then seated.
Horrors! Isn't political party something that is determined at birth? No, it's not. It means basically nothing more than changing your shirt from blue to red. Political party is whatever you say it is. Let them squeal all they want.
It says the party has to choose, not the governor.
Sounds super constitutional. Elections don't matter. We always win.