Posted on 01/16/2008 8:22:40 PM PST by neverdem
In the process of upholding New York's oft-criticized method of selecting state judges, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the rights of political parties to pick their candidates with little input from voters.
Yesterday's ruling is a boon to the leaders of the county Democratic organizations in New York City, leaving them with one of their last remaining patronage powers: a strong degree of influence in selecting state judges. A coda to the state's century-old debate over how best to pick judges, the unanimous court decision will stymie legislative efforts to amend the unusual system of party conventions by which New York picks many of its judges.
FROM THE ARCHIVE: An Editorial, 'Lopez Torres Before the Nine' | An Editorial, 'Spitzer v. Lopez Torres'
The party conventions, which meet across the state in September for the sole purpose of nominating judicial candidates to the state Supreme Court, are unique to New York. They have long been criticized as a sham because they often feature little debate and evaluation of the candidates, with the delegates present often bestowing the party nomination to the candidates favored by the local party boss. One candidate, Margarita Lopez Torres, who was spurned by Democratic officials in Brooklyn, challenged the selection process in court. She convinced a federal district judge and a panel of three judges from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that her First Amendment rights as a candidate had been violated, as had the rights of voters who had little voice in the nominating process.
In rejecting her claims and overturning the two lower courts, the Supreme Court framed the case as having less to do with Ms. Lopez Torres and voter participation than with the rights of political parties to do as they will without judicial interference.
"A political party has a..."
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
If they don't like the selection of delegates, then get enough people annoyed (and enough advertising funds from whatever lawyers it is who don't like the system), and run against those party hack judicial candidates in the general elections as a third party.
I think the SCOTUS is being strict constructionist and respecting states rights.
Agreed. It was the right decision about a bad process. It is up to New Yorkers to change their process, not the USSC.
Vaquero, I agree. The way NY has its selection for judges undermines the criticism of Rudy for his judicial appointments, IMHO. I could be wrong. Regardless, I'm voting for Fred.
I thought the NY Times would have had a more technically informative story about Bloomberg's dream for forensic DNA technology. Instead they focused on politics, rights and logistics.
Genetic Bank Raises Issues of Practicality and Privacy
Rich Prize Dangled To Spur Anti-Crime Technology (Bloomberg's DNA technology dream)
FReepmail me if you want on or off my New York ping list.
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.