Tuesday, July 24th, 2007...9:13 pm
Me Picking Nits
This picture ran in this morning’s Star. It features Justice Sandra Day O’Connor speaking to two people at the National Governor’s Association meeting. The caption identifies O’Connor and mentions the topics that she spoke about at the meeting. The caption fails to identify the women she is talking to, one of whom looks like Jennifer Granholm. More importantly, the other is the outgoing head of the NGA, who happens to be our own Janet Napolitano.
Yeah, I know that this stuff comes down from the wire services and gets printed verbaitim. But, don’t you think that an Arizona based newspaper should identify the Arizona governor when they run her photo?
NB – Before this becomes a reporter bashing thing, I doubt that Scarpinato, Brodesky or any other political reporter had anything to with this.
8 Comments
July 25th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
This is a shame. Justice O’Connor, appointed by Ronald Reagan, has been touring the country and emphasizing the importance of judicial independence and decrying political attacks made on judges. She has been a vocal supporter, for instance, of our merit selection system of selecting judges…even though each year, Senator Gray and other conservative Republicans introduce bills and constitutional amendments that politicize our system of selecting judges.
She is to be commended for her service. If I were to guess, this was probably one of things she was talking about.
July 25th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I listened to Justice O’Connor’s speech on C-SPAN and she was very gracious in her praise of Governor Napolitano (who welcomed her to the podium.)
I’d take her any day over Mr. Roberts and Mr. Alito.
July 25th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Also, just in case you need any further reason to want a Democratic President next time around:
The justices who are the oldest/in the poorest health are Ginsberg, Stevens and Souter.
Woe to the country if a Republican gets elected and replaces them in the next four years.
July 26th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Senator Gray and other conservative Republicans introduce bills and constitutional amendments that politicize our system of selecting judges.
Um, I hate to break it to you but the merit selection system is already politicized. It’s just not as openly political as a partisan election. Any system in which political preference and “diversity” is considered a factor rather than simply legal ability is political. Let’s not kid ourselves.
And if you have any question about the politicization, look at the campaigning against Scott Bales by CAP a couple of years ago or Laurie Roberts’ campaign against Sheila Madden this month. http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/LaurieRoberts/3520
I’m not saying elections would be better, but let’s not pretend the current system is all sweetness and light. We do a disservice to the debate by pretending it is.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Hmmmm, O’Connor supposedly quit because of her husband’s “ailing health” and “wanting to spend more time with him in southern Arizona.
Well, since she quit she’s been running around Washington as a member of the ISG, and making speeches, etc. And, I’d wager she’s spent more time in Washington SINCE her resignation, because of the Court’s relatively light calendar.
In law school, i read case after case where she was the deciding vote for the good side. Now, Alito/Roberts is in her spot. Thanks, Sandra. You just fucked-up twenty-five years of your decisions. And the country’s paying for it….dearly.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
She did retire for those very reasons she stated. Yes, she can ‘run around the country’ because she is gone for a few days at a time. AS a Justice, she was pretty much locked into being in DC much of the year. If she has to miss a function because of her husband’s health, it is no biggie. As a member of the supreme Court, it would cause problems. She did what she felt best.
July 27th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
BoredinAZ,
First of all, I do agree with you that the merit system is a political system. The Commissioners are appointed and confirmed by the Senate, they are balanced by party to some degree, and include public as well as attorney members. Any system for selecting anyone or anything is political, you are right and can be politicized.
However, the degree makes a big big difference here. I don’t get the impression that the process is overtly political like elections and the individuals who serve on these committees. For the most part, commissioners look at the applications for evidence of merit, public service, and their backgrounds are checked. Diversity of the state is a criterion used, by Constitutional decree. In my time observing, there has been a very rare reference to the political ideology of candidate at all.
There is a politicization of any system, but it appears that the examples you cite come from outside the process. CAP attacks the system overtly as “insider ball” and distorts the process to make it look and sound more political than it really is. And yes, there is an ocassional member who disagrees on overtly political grounds with a candidate, but that is rare and typically the rest of the commissioners find it “over the top” and they do not win out in the end.
Yes, every process is political and the merit system has political party as a factor, but the commissioners that I know and observe take the process and selection very seriously. Temperament, legal ability and reputation, and character matter the most by far.
July 27th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
I guess my follow-up to the Madden example you cite is this:
“Three members of the selection committee, including acting chairman Arizona Supreme Court Justice Michael Ryan, said commission members were not swayed by the lawmakers’ letter or Madden’s controversial order, but instead selected other applicants based on experience.”
The process we have takes comment from the public, including that of legislators. Any who object to an nominee are heard. However, the commission can, but does not have to, abide by that advice. The Governor, who appoints off the list, does not have to abide by that criticism. The committees have the ability to resist political pressure that speaks to ideology and policy, but does not speak to a candidates ability. Judicial elections do not do this or have this insulation.
I definitely get your point though and you overall point about this process becoming politicized is noted and understood.
Best to you!