Saturday, October 07, 2006

There are never any Republicans at fault in the Washington Post:

This Saturday, there is an Op-Ed by Andrew Cohen, Of Elections, Judges and Stupidity, denouncing three ballot measures that would intrude on the independence of the judiciary. How are they described? Here's the run down:
  • Colorado's Amendment 40 would remove from office at the same time five of the state's current Supreme Court justices and seven of its current 19 intermediate appellate court judges.
    • Supporter: John Andrews - party affiliation not stated
    • Opponents: Bill Owens (R) and Roy Romer (D)
  • South Dakota's Amendment E where citizens will be able to punish jurists over unpopular decisions.
    • Supporters: not stated
    • Opponents: not stated
  • Montana's CI-98 which would allow Montanans to recall state court judges at any time for any reason. (And now apparently nugatory due to ballot qualification issues.)
    • Supporters: not stated
    • Opponents: not stated
Who supports Colorado's Amendment 40? John Andrews, former Republican state senator (and President of that body at one time).

Who supports South Dakota's Amendment E? Ron Branson, former (California) Republican state Assemblyman . Who opposes Amendment E? Both Democrats and Republicans.

Who supports Montana's CI-98? Republican state Representative Ed Butcher. Who opposes it? Former Montana Supreme Court Justice Jim Regnier.

In every instance where party affiliation of supporters could be demonstrated, readers are not told if they were Republicans or Democrats. (It took this blog about 20 minutes to ferret out the information.) This is a consistent feature in reporting these days. "Congress" is failing, but rarely is it stated who controls it. "Dangerous measures" are placed on the ballot, but no partisan fingerprints are reported out. No wonder the Republicans can engage in activities deemed harmful and yet pay no price for it.

ALSO: About two weeks ago on the Charlie Rose show, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was bemoaning all the actions aimed at the judiciary. Amendment E, having an Inspector General charted by Congress snooping around, laws limiting the ability of the Supreme Court to review in select areas, the threat of using the power of the purse to slap down the judiciary, restraints on judicial latitude in sentencing, the Terri Schiavo intervention, and so on. But to listen to her, it was as if it was all happening by "some folks", as if it had nothing to do with the more reactionary parts of the Republican party. It was pathetic to watch her. Oh, and Charlie Rose didn't volunteer to clarify where the assault on the judiciary was coming from, so nobody was the wiser.


Some information about the origins of South Dakota's Amendment E.

This is an idea from the kookiest fringe of the far right. It's scary that it's on the ballot.

By Blogger Steve M., at 10/11/2006 8:17 AM  

(I see the supporters have spiffed up their Web site since I wrote that post, so the first couple of links won't show you what I promised. They clearly knew lipstick needed to be applied to the pig....)

By Blogger Steve M., at 10/11/2006 8:20 AM  

Post a Comment