The movement conservatives in Missouri are once more taking aim at our non-partisan  judicial selection process.

You remember the Missouri Plan – it is the one that is so screwed up that 36 other states have adopted it and it is taught in law schools as an example of the non-partisan way that the judiciary should operate, that all might have equal confidence in the inherent fairness and non-partisan nature of our courts.  But then, a sense of fairness does tend to elude those driven by the movement conservative ideology.

The Missouri Plan was put before the voters of the state in 1940 and passed overwhelmingly  in response to the hijacking of the justice system by the powerful political machines of Tom Pendergast in Kansas City and Edward Butler of St. Louis. Under the Bosses, justice resided in their pockets, and nowhere else.

The amendment passed by our grandparents 68 years ago,  dubbed “The Missouri Plan“, replaced judicial elections with a judicial commission comprised of judges, lawyers and citizens to  review and interview applicants for vacancies on the bench, and winnows the field to three choices. The Governor then has sixty days to select the new judge from those three candidates. If he fails to do so in the allotted time, the decision reverts to the recommending body. At the first General Election following one year on the bench, the new judge faces the voters who decide whether the appointed judge shall be retained.

In balloting to determine whether judges be retained, the state Bar Association issues ratings for the judges before the election, and the ratings and recommendations are made available to the public. It is in the best interest of attorneys and citizens alike for judges to be fair-minded and non-partisan, so the ratings are extremely apolitical.

With Matt Blunt-force trauma stepping down to spend more time with his legal team, the foam-flecked loons are plotting to make it an issue once more, with the appointment of Stephen Limbaugh to the federal bench leaving a vacancy on the state supreme court.

Kraske today:

Within minutes of the Limbaugh vote, conservative critics of the Missouri court plan began mobilizing. They issued a series of news releases that, taken in sum, signaled that once again the state’s highly touted nonpartisan selection plan is in their crosshairs.

“I am committed to appointing a Missouri Supreme Court judge who will faithfully interpret our constitution and will not legislate from the bench,” Gov. Matt Blunt said.

Translation: Send me a conservative I can support.

John Elliott, president of the conservative Adam Smith Foundation, said he hoped the Appellate Judicial Commission, the group that screens candidates and prepares a slate of three judges for Blunt, “does not repeat last summer’s mistakes and nominate his replacement under a cloud of secrecy and corruption.”

He added: “In the event that does occur, I strongly encourage the governor to use his constitutional authority to reject the commission’s nominees.”

Translation: We’re prepared to go to war over this pick.

Said Charlie Harris, president of the Missouri Bar: “We … will see the same thing we saw this fall – an all-out assault on the nonpartisan court plan. My message to all citizens of the state and all lawyers of the state is to weather the storm.”

Game on.

Missourians might recall that we already did this last summer when Ronnie White announced his retirement.  The movement conservatives, feeling their grip slipping, attacked the non-partisan process.  They said the process is too secretive and lawyers have undue influence.  The far-right fringe was pissed that Blunt had to select Patricia Breckenridge – they would have much preferred a conservative-activist stooge who would have furthered baby Blunt’s wacky agenda to an actual judge.  According to the naysayers, if the wingnut governor isn’t free to pick a wingnut for the bench, the process is broken.

But in reality the system has worked very well for us for 67 years, and has served to keep the state courts as apolitical as possible, while efficiently and promptly filling vacancies on the bench with qualified jurists. In the years since 1940, it has been expanded to include all circuit court judges in Clay, Platte and St. Louis Counties.

One of the most elegant features of the plan is the way it defangs the money monster. Success in partisan elections depends on money, on the financial contributors of donors (a very specious proposition when we are talking about the very concept of Justice) and that is what pisses off the wingnuts the most – if they can’t influence a process with money, it must be wrong.

The Missouri plan works so well that in the intervening decades, 36 additional states have adopted the plan in whole or in part.

Detractors say that the process is too reliant on the input of lawyers, but that argument doesn’t get off the starting blocks with me.  Who better to make judgments about legal professionals than other legal professionals?  How deep is your experience with judging the competence of jurists?  Mine is a thimble of the ocean.  If you are like most people you don’t know diddly about the court system because you have no business before the bar of justice.  If the wingnuts have their way, judges would be elected like state legislators, and what a nightmare that would be if judges owed political favors to certain segments of the electorate, and naturally had a political bias against others.  How could you call that justice?

The move to abolish the Missouri Plan gets full-throated opposition from the Missouri Bar Association and other professional organizations representing attorneys of diverse political backgrounds.  Proponents of the plan say it eliminates the influence of politics as effectively as is possible.  They say that a better alternative simply doesn’t exist.

By the way, I have had a word or two to impart about the Adam Smith Foundation in the past, pointing out some things that weren’t mentioned in Kraske’s article.  They are a little hard to take seriously, but he didn’t tell you that.  Let’s go to the Blue Girl, Red State archives, shall we?  

In June, a thinly-veiled BluntCo initiative rolled out to attack the judicial selection process.  Flying under the flag of something called “The Adam Smith Foundation” the minions of the governor went on the attack, while simultaneously playing the victim card….neat trick, that.

June 26th, 2007

 Adam Smith Foundation Launched (Jefferson City) – The Adam Smith Foundation is proud to announce its official launch as an organization committed to promoting conservative principals [sic] and individual liberties for Missouri. Our Foundation seeks to provide Missourian’s with information they need to hold their State and local elected officials as well as activist judges directly accountable for their actions.

“There are countless leftist political groups in Missouri, but only a handful of conservative organizations. We strive to fill an important void by holding politicians in Jefferson City accountable.” said
John Elliott, organization President. “Big spenders in state and local governments have forgotten that tax dollars belong to the citizens, and we will promote ways to reduce the size of government.”

Blunt pursues this agenda at the peril of further splitting the Missouri GOP. When State Senator Kris Koster left the Republican party in August, he cited the Blunt Administrations attack on the judiciary was one of his key reasons for switching parties. Koster, a former prosecuting attorney for Cass County summed up the Blunt administration very well when he said “I can’t think of another administration in our lifetime that has such disregard and such contempt for the third branch of government.”

‘Nuff said.

[Please keep in mind that this is not a post about Kris Koster.  When I went to my archives, one of the posts I cited mentioned  his reference to the attacks on the court system as one of the reasons he gave for  switching parties last summer.  I feel compelled to state that because even the most oblique reference to Koster means that he dominates the discussion in comments.   ~~BG]

The power went off at Blue Girl’s house just as she was about to post the piece below, but since it was up on her own site already, I’m copying and pasting it for her to this one.

It is time for the petulant brat who has already stepped aside from seeking re-election as this states governor to consider stepping down now. He has clearly abused the power of his office and needs to go now, for the good of the state.

Yael Abouhalkah, writing for the editorial board of the Kansas City Star articulated it quite well:

It’s time to start using the “R” word with Missouri’s immature governor, Matt Blunt. Yes, he may need to resign for the good of the state.

Sound too harsh? Not for people who respect the governor’s office. Not for people who realize Blunt’s recent childish actions are tarnishing that office right now.

Here’s the latest example of why Blunt made absolutely the right move in announcing in January that he would not run for re-election.

His office has demanded copies of every e-mail and document sent to or from Rep. Jeff Harris, a Columbia Democrat running for attorney general.

Why the request?

No real reason, the governor’s office admitted.

They just did it to jerk the chain of Harris, who had the temerity to stand up and defend the public’s right to know what’s going on with their governor. [emphasis added]

So the governor’s office thought it would make this absurd request. Now taxpayer money will be wasted as Harris complies with the request.

Of course, the one person who’s in real trouble over e-mails is Blunt.

Earlier this week, independent investigators sued Blunt to obtain computer backup tapes that contain e-mail messages deleted from the governor’s office computers.

Put simply, Blunt or his team may have illegally tried to hide information from the public.

Now the governor wants to divert attention from his mounting problems. Problems that, if they continue, could cause him to have to resign in disgrace later this year.

I have wanted him gone since his inaugural address in 2005 – but I never quite articulated it as well as Abouhalkah just did, and I have certainly never managed to discuss the smarmy little fucker without using profanity (see?) so just let me say this about the above reproduced editorial:

Fuckin’-A.

And if you have a little love to show Jeff Harris, you can do so at his website. He has already proven himself a stand-up guy, and god knows that here in Missouri we could use a few more of those in public service and a whole lot less Blunts.

Hey, Blue Girl, the Post-Dispatch is all over this story too, and what I keep noticing is how lame G.W. Blunt’s spokesholes sound. His lawyer, for example, whines that Eckersley “acted unethically” in making a tape of his conversation about the subject with Ed Martin. Irony-challenged, that’s what that whole crew is.

Ed Martin’s attorney, Frank Neuner, had this trenchant observation: “‘We believe that when all the facts come out in the matter that Ed Martin will be vindicated.'” I’m tongue tied for a retort to such a brilliant defense.

I know I read somewhere in the Post the opinion that Blunt needs to resign, but I couldn’t find it. (Anybody want to provide a link to that?)

Just because two librul rags want a resignation, though, I don’t see it happening. Not over anything as inconsequential as breaking the law, attempting to cover it up, defaming one of his own, and embarrassing the office of governor. Rules and ethics are for the little people.

Correction: The Post-Dispatch has not, as I thought, called for Blunt’s resignation. My memory served me wrong: I had simply read online about the K.C. Star calling for his resignation and thought I had read it in the Post.

Less than two weeks before Matt Blunt dropped his “I’m not seeking reelection” bombshell, he gathered his cronies at the posh Big Cedar Lodge south of Branson to plan the campaign strategy for his upcoming reelection battle.  

Present at the meeting were top-tier staffers from his administration, media specialists, fundraisers, pollsters, communications specialists and ground-game organizers.  There was no doubt in anyones mind:  the meeting was the kickoff to his reelection campaign.  Those present reported that the Governor was engaged, inquisitive and involved in every aspect of the planning.  Prior to the meeting, Blunt had prerecorded video footage for his initial volley of campaign commercials that were to be rolled out before spring, with the goal of beating Nixon off the starting blocks with a couple of weeks of uncontested air time in which he could tout his ostensible “accomplishments” with no counter message.      

The brainstorming session in the Ozarks turned over every rock they could find. The participants pored over internal polling data; they discussed   initiative petitions currently making the rounds, keenly remembering the effects of 2006’s Amendment 2 (the stem cell initiative) and the influence of that initiative on other races.  

During the meetings his message was honed:  He would accentuate that he had turned around a $1 Billion inherited state debt to show three years of surplusses, that spending on education had been boosted, and that 90,000 new Missouri jobs had been created.  He even planned to claim that he had transformed a broken health care system.  

The messages crafted at the Big Cedar Lodge formed the foundation for the State of the State address he delivered on January 15.  

Those in attendance were convinced that the message could be framed successfully, even though Jay Nixon would assail the governors record of kicking poor people off the Medicaid rolls, warn that the economy was shaky, and the education system was still lagging.  

So what happened?  

It wasn’t money – Blunt had a proven ability to rake in massive amounts of cash, and some people present thought he could take in as much as $20 million for his war chest.  He had raised almost $10 million since being elected in 2004, although his campaign warchest was sitting at about $4 million, and he still needed to return $2.3 million  in excess contributions.  After the reimbursements were made, he and Nixon would be on a level playing field.  

So again, what happened?  

There are plenty of instances of wrongdoing to point to.  Those who haven’t done anything wrong are not usually inclined to spend $89,000 in legal fees in a single quarter.  You may recall that the Eckersley scandal broke in the last quarter.  In case you have forgotten, Scott Eckersley was a staff attorney for the governor who was fired for having  the temerity to tell Baby Guv  he needed to follow the law and archive email, not delete, delete, delete.  Of course, Baby Guv lashed out.  

Or maybe the money he took from Jack  Abramoff for his 2000 Secretary of State campaign has finally caught up with  him?  

Or did his pioneering work in vote caging catch up to him?  When he was still Secretary of State, he instructed county election officials to provide him with lists of absentee voters, and then forwarded those names to Republican campaign operatives, and the GOP began contacting those voters.  This ploy by a graduate of the Naval Academy disproportionately disenfranchised military personnel who were serving overseas in a time of war.

Or perhaps something came of the probe into his 2004 campaign for governor, when he used $48,000 of the public funds to run ads to encourage the citizenry to go to the polls. This scheme gave Blunt an unfair edge over his opponent,  and allowed him to win by a nose.

Of course, there is the fact that former state representative Nathan Cooper was due to report to prison just days after Blunt’s announcement, and of course it is just a coincidence that Cooper hearing those doors slam behind him has now been delayed.  

Could it be that Nathan is singing like a canary,  and Matty B knows there is an indictment in his immediate future? Dare I hope?  

Or could it be the fee office scandal?  I’ve been waiting almost two years for an indictment on that mess.  There is just no way that little arrangement among insiders was on the up-and-up.  

Whatever the reason for his sudden one-eighty, there is one thing for sure – I’m not buying the whole “spend more time with my family” smokescreen.  Unless he is trying to soak ’em up now before he goes to the federal pen for some corruption charge or another, and the wife goes back to Virginia from whence she came.

People in Blue States who think Missouri is reliably red are sadly off-base.  It was only in 2000 that the MOGOP finally got their corrupt, fetid fingers around the levers of power, thanks to term limits, which has had the net effect of destroying civility and changing the attitude in Jeff City from  one of cross-party  cooperation to one of “screw you and screw your constituents.”

Well, it turns out that Missourians are more than just a tad sick of the juvenile antics and reckless disregard and selfish scorn for the greater good of the state we all call home that the MOGOP personifies.

And we haven’t even addressed his war on Missouri women yet, but rest assured that my St. Louis sister in the struggle, Angry Black Bitch, and I will be reminding everyone for the next 50+ weeks that Matt Blunt has, since his first moment in office, been the most anti-woman, misogynistic ass ever to lead the state.  Issues important to women were the first victims of his budget-cuts.  He tried to kill the First Steps program (and failed miserably in that quest).  He eliminated family planning and contraceptive funds from county health departments, and put a gag-order in place that prevented employees of those agencies from even telling the poor women served by those agencies where the services might still be available.  He poured acid on the social safety net, reducing the level to receive benefits to the point where a single mother of two who earned more than $350 per month was considered too well-heeled to receive Medicaid for her children.  Kansas City immediately had a hissy-fit and passed an additional sales tax to fund Truman Medical Center and the public health clinics that serve the poor in our community.  Matty B has seen a steady erosion of support ever since he took aim at the poor residents of a largely rural and poor state. 

Recent polling in Missouri shows Hillary Clinton mopping the floor with every Republican contender, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published the results of a poll today that has embattled governor Matt Blunt getting absolutely destroyed in next years gubernatorial race by Jay Nixon, the current Attorney General – who we have elected to that statewide office four times. 

Matt Blunt has been an unmitigated disaster for this state, and we are all counting down the days until January 20, 2009 – which will signal the end of not one error, but two.

In 1940, following an era of machine politics in St. Louis and Kansas City that out-Tammanied Tammany Hall, Missourians amended the state constitution to change the way judges were selected to fill vacancies on the benches of the Missouri Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the circuit courts of Jackson County and the municipality of St. Louis.

The amendment was placed on the ballot and enacted in response to the hijacking of the justice system by the powerful political machines of Tom Pendergast in Kansas City and Edward Butler of St. Louis.  Under the Bosses, justice resided in their pockets, and nowhere else.

The amendment offered was dubbed “The Missouri Plan” and under it, judicial elections were replaced with a judicial commission comprised of judges, lawyers and citizens which reviews and interviews applicants for vacancies on the bench and winnows the field to three choices.  The Governor then has sixty days to select the new judge from those three candidates.  If he fails to do so in the allotted time, the decision reverts to the recommending body.  At the first General Election following one year on the bench, the new judge faces the voters who decide whether the appointed jurist shall be retained.

In balloting to determine whether judges be retained, the state Bar Association issues ratings for the judges before the election, and the ratings and recommendations are made available to the public.  It is in the best interest of attorneys and  citizens alike for judges to be fair-minded and non-partisan, so the ratings are extremely apolitical.

This system has worked very well for us for 67 years, and has served to keep the state courts as apolitical as possible, while efficiently and promptly filling vacancies on the bench with qualified jurists.  In the years since 1940, it has been expanded to include all circuit court judges in Clay, Platte and St. Louis Counties.

One of the most elegant features of the plan is the way it defangs the money monster.  Success in partisan elections depends on money, on the financial contributors of donors (a very iffy proposition when we are talking about the very concept of Justice).

The Missouri plan works so well that in the intervening decades, 36 additional states have adopted the plan in whole or in part.

Unfortunately, last summer the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White (famously “blue slipped” by Ashcroft and denied a hearing after Clinton nominated him to the Federal bench) created a vacancy on the Missouri Supreme Court and  gave little Matty Blunt the opportunity to stamp his wittle feet and pitch a hissy-fit and try to break another part of the state  government that actually works.  Injecting politics back into the process appeals to him, too, of course.  And as a bonus, he got to throw a tantrum because he doesn’t think the commissions  pay him proper homage as the elected executive of the state.

Don’t be fooled, his hissy-fit is pure political theater.  Blunt is attacking the nonpartisan judge selection because he wants total control of the appointments.  But there is a more insidious undertone to it, too.  He’s firing a warning shot across the bow of the judges not covered by the non-partisan system who do have to stand for election.  It makes the Governors position crystal clear – if he doesn’t like their decisions, he can orchestrate a deluge of money for opposing candidates.  It has already happened.

In June, a thinly-veiled BluntCo initiative rolled out to attack the judicial selection process.  Flying under the flag of something called “The Adam Smith Foundation” the minions of the governor went on the attack, while simultaneously playing the victim card….neat trick, that.

June 26th, 2007

 

Adam Smith Foundation Launched

  (Jefferson City) – The Adam Smith Foundation is proud to announce its official launch as an organization committed to promoting conservative principals [sic] and individual liberties for Missouri. Our Foundation seeks to provide Missourian’s with information they need to hold their State and local elected officials as well as activist judges directly accountable for their actions.

“There are countless leftist political groups in Missouri, but only a handful of conservative organizations. We strive to fill an important void by holding politicians in Jefferson City accountable.” said John Elliott, organization President. “Big spenders in state and local governments have forgotten that tax dollars belong to the citizens, and we will promote ways to reduce the size of government.”

Blunt pursues this agenda at the peril of further splitting the Missouri GOP.  When State Senator Kris Koster left the Republican party in August, he cited the Blunt Administrations attack on the judiciary was one of his key reasons for switching parties.  Koster, a former prosecuting attorney for Cass County summed up the Blunt administration very well when he said “I can’t think of another administration in our lifetime that has such disregard and such contempt for the third branch of government.”