TrishAndHalli.com

Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, observations on life in general, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them all!

RSS Feeds, Etc.

Get New Posts Via Email! Enter your e-mail address and hit the 'Subscribe' button. Your address will never be sold or spammed.

About

Profile TrishAndHalli.com
Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them!.

Archives

Categories

Pages

Blogroll

Conservative News

General Interest

Idaho Falls Links

Idaho Politics

Left-Leaning Idaho

Libertarian Links

Pro-life Organizations


Jerry Sproul, CPA
ThoughtfulConsideration.com

Please take a moment to visit our sponsors!

Guest Post: Copple Trout’s early retirement reflects her contempt for voter choice

May 31st, 2007 by Halli

The following editorial by Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance appeared in the May 27 Idaho Statesman

According to Idaho Supreme Court Justice Linda Copple Trout, ordinary Idahoans “don’t know how to make a choice on who would make a good judge.” This is oddly insulting to voters, for if Copple Trout is taken at her word, they didn’t know what they were doing when they returned her to the bench four times.

Copple Trout offered this elitist explanation for her decision to retire early, to avoid giving citizens the right to vote on her replacement. This is an astonishing admission of her part in a collaborative effort to do an end run around the Idaho Constitution, which she swore to uphold and which says unmistakably that, “The justices of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the electors of the state.”

According to Randy Stapilus of the Ridenbaugh Press, since 1950 no less than 68 percent of Idaho Supreme Court justices initially reached the bench through appointment rather than election.

Ostensibly, Copple Trout is retiring early because each judicial election has turned into a “popularity contest.” But the selection of her replacement may be just that, with the process now in the hands of the appointed Idaho Judicial Council rather than the people. The edge is likely to go to candidates who have done their best to become well-liked members of the clubby judicial establishment.

Chief Justice Gerald Schroeder is also retiring early, apparently sharing Copple Trout’s disdain for the electoral process. When the Idaho Values Alliance sent a questionnaire to all 19 candidates for his seat, not one came back.

This despite the fact that all 20 “agree/disagree” statements in the questionnaire were lifted virtually verbatim from the Idaho Constitution. Thus the alliance was doing nothing more than asking these candidates whether they agreed with the very document they are prepared to take a solemn and sacred oath to uphold.

This means either that the candidates did not recognize the constitution when they saw it, or did recognize it but were unwilling to let the public know whether they agree with it.

Remarkably, the Idaho Statesman, which clearly didn’t recognize the state constitution either, accused the alliance’s questionnaire of being “heavy-handed” and nothing more than a “gimmick,” “cynically” designed to “buttonhole the hopefuls on wedge issues such as gay marriage, eminent domain and gun ownership.”

Well, if the Statesman’s editors consider these “wedge issues,” their problem is not with the alliance but with the Idaho Constitution.

Current Justice Dan Eismann filled out a much more extensive questionnaire than ours when he ran against an incumbent in 2000, while his opponent did not. The public so appreciated his candor and his convictions they elected him 59 percent to 41 percent. In other words, Idahoans do in fact know how to choose good judges. They just need adequate information.

Eismann’s example shows that it is absurd for candidates to hide behind the conceit that it is inappropriate for potential judges to give the public information about their judicial philosophy because it might compromise future rulings.

Imagine league officials interviewing a prospective umpire. “Will you faithfully enforce the rules of baseball?” “Of course.” “What about the ‘three strikes and you’re out’ rule?” “Well, I can’t comment on that because I might actually have to call a game someday.” It’s no less ridiculous when a prospective judge says he will uphold the whole constitution but refuses to commit to upholding its parts. But in the judge’s case, the stakes are far higher.

Perhaps the day will come when the information blackout that shrouds this process is lifted, but apparently – with the Idaho Statesman reinforcing the cone of silence – that day is not today.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Legislature, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Property Rights | No Comments »

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Copyright © 2oo6 by TrishAndHalli.com Powered by Wordpress          
Ported by ThemePorter - template by Design4 | Sponsored by Cheap Web Hosting