See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: [Idaho Supreme Court] Judge wannabes refuse to endorse constitution
Source:
WND
URL Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/p ... -friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55703
Published: May 15, 2007
Author: Bob Unruh
Post Date: 2007-06-11 15:17:06 by Calamity
Keywords: judges, constitution, traitors
Views: 68
Comments: 6
Judge wannabes refuse to endorse constitution Questionnaire sought confirmation of support for state law of the land None of the 19 candidates currently seeking appointment to fill a vacancy in the Idaho Supreme Court, was willing to confirm support for a series of statements drawn directly from the state's constitution, according to the Idaho Values Alliance. The pro-family organization sent the candidates for the important judicial post a routine questionnaire asking whether they agreed or disagreed with a list of statements. For example, Question 1 asked whether the candidates would agree with the statement: "The Founders of the state of Idaho were grateful to God for our freedom." Not one candidate would respond to the questionnaire, even though the preamble to the state constitution says: "We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare do establish this Constitution." Likewise, none of the candidates responded to the following statement: "All men have an inalienable right to enjoy and defend both life and liberty." The state constitution, in Article 1, Section 1, states: "All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty…" The questionnaire was nothing more than requests for affirmation – or disagreement – for the existing state constitution, a document every judge in Idaho swears an oath to uphold upon taking office. "One possibility is that the candidates didn't even recognize that these statements come word-for-word from the state constitution, which is pretty alarming," said Bryan Fischer, the executive director of the alliance. "The second possibility is that they did recognize them as coming from the constitution, but weren't willing to let the public know whether they agreed with it. That's even worse," he said. "The fact that not one candidate was willing to give the public this critical information will make the average observer wonder whether any of them are qualified for a seat on the bench," Fischer said. Significant public issues are pending in the state, and rulings from the state Supreme Court affect the life of every resident, he noted. "Whoever is appointed by the governor to the Supreme Court will take an oath to uphold the state constitution. The citizens have the right to know if candidates for that position know what's in it, and whether they will support it. It's worthless for them to say they will uphold the whole thing if they won't commit to upholding specific parts of it," Fischer said. Those not responding to the questionnaire were: Bart M. Davis, Myron Dan Gabbert Jr., Michael S. Gilmore, Ralph J. Gines, Hon. Joel D. Horton, Larry C. Hunter, Warren E. Jones, Debora K. Kristensen, Lynn M. Luker, Charles F. Peterson Jr., Kevin D. Setterlee, Gardner W. Skinner Jr., Marvin M. Smith, Hon. Kathryn A. Sticklen, Clive J. Strong, Mitchell E. Toryanski, Terrence R. White, Hon. R. Barry Wood and William F. Yost III, the alliance said. Question 4 asked the candidates to agree or disagree with the statement: "All political power is inherent in the people, not the courts." The state constitution specifies: "All political power is inherent in the people." Fischer said the role of judges in the law and umpires in baseball is similar. "The role of a judge, like an umpire, is not to make up the rules or change the rules he doesn't like, but to apply the rules that have been established by others," he said. "The first question league officials would ask a prospective umpire is whether he knows the rules of baseball and will agree to uphold them. If an umpire applicant doesn't know the rules or wouldn't be willing to openly admit he agrees with the 'three strikes and you're out' rule, for example, he wouldn't stand a chance of getting a job. "Why would we award a position on the most powerful judicial body in the state to someone who won't let us know if he even knows the state constitution or agrees with it?" Fischer asked. "When Judge Dan Eismann ran for a seat on the Idaho Supreme Court in 2000, he filled out a much more extensive questionnaire than this one. So these candidates can't hide behind the pretense that judicial rules don't allow them to return a judicial questionnaire. This naturally raises the question, why are these candidates so secretive? Why is this process so insular that the public cannot get any information at all about the judicial philosophy of the candidates?" The document also asked the candidates to agree or disagree with: "The exercise and enjoyment of religious faith and worship should be forever guaranteed." That comes from Article I, Section 4: "The exercise and enjoyment of religious faith and worship shall forever be guaranteed…" They also were asked to agree or disagree with: "The people, not just the militia, should have the right to keep and bear arms." And in Article 1, Section 11, the state constitution declares: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged…" Still another request for agreement or disagreement: "The first concern of all good government should be the virtue and sobriety of the people, and the purity of the home." And from the constitution, Article III, Section 24: "The first concern of all good government is the virtue and sobriety of the people, and the purity of the home." The Idaho state constitution also recognizes that a marriage shall be only between a man and a woman, but Idaho residents don't know whether the judicial candidates agree with that or not. Are you a representative of the media who would like to interview the author of this story? Let us know.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#1. To: All (#0)
The constitution candidates won't affirm Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Justice: idahoans too stupid to pick own judges Friday, May 25, 2007 http://www.idahovaluesalliance.com/news.asp?id=518 Bryan Fischer, Executive Director JUSTICE TROUT: IDAHOANS ARE TOO STUPID TO PICK THEIR OWN JUDGES In an expression of astonishing judicial arrogance, Idaho Supreme Court Justice Linda Copple Trout announced yesterday that she is leaving her term on the bench early just so ordinary Idahoans can be excluded from selecting her successor. Said Trout, “There are a lot of problems with the system, but the biggest problem is people don’t know how to make a choice on who would make a good judge.” It would be harder to imagine a more egregious display of hubris and contempt for ordinary Idahoans, who know exactly what they want in a judge: someone who knows the constitution, will apply it fairly and evenhandedly, and will refuse to legislate from the bench. And we want candidates who will let the public know whether or not they agree with Idaho’s state constitution. Trout joins Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Gerald Schroeder in early retirement, who is stepping down this summer for exactly the same reason. Trout herself was appointed, by Democrat governor Cecil Andrus, and Schroeder was likewise an appointee to the court in 1995. Although justices must eventually stand for re-election, the re-election of appointed judges is virtually guaranteed since they then appear on the ballot as incumbents. As David Ripley of Idaho Chooses Life observes, this process is an obvious end- run around the constitutionally designed process by which judges are to be selected. Says Ripley, "Now Justice Trout confirms that there is, in fact, a conspiracy within the state’s judiciary to effectively ignore the Constitution. These elites have decided to simply amend the Constitution without so much as a public court opinion or legislative act." Trout actually believes that forcing judges to run for office “tarnishes the judiciary,” essentially because it opens them up to campaign ads that expose their liberal leanings. When District Judge Ronald Wilper, in a gross display of judicial activism, denied the Keep the Commandments Coalition the right to a vote on its duly qualified petition in 2004, the Idaho Supreme Court slapped him down 4-1 on appeal. The only justice who voted against the people’s right to vote? Linda Copple Trout. Trout complained about independent television ads that ran in her 2002 election, saying, “I never dreamed that I would see ‘Liberal Linda Trout’ on TV.” Despite Trout’s complaint that the label was “unfair and untrue,” it appears to an objective observer that it was a simple statement of fact. To make matters worse, Judge Wilper is now a member of the seven-member Idaho Judicial Council who will select the short list of nominees to send on to the governor for Trout’s replacement. Trout disdains a judicial election as nothing more than “a popularity contest,” overlooking the fact that the selection of her replacement may be exactly that, with the edge going to candidates who have done their best to be well-liked members of the clubby judicial establishment.
There are no replies to Comment # 2. End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAnother source:
#2. To: All (#1)
JUSTICE TROUT: IDAHOANS ARE TOO STUPID TO PICK THEIR OWN JUDGES
Replies to Comment # 2.