on Retention and Rejection of Judges
By
Kerry Messer, President & Founder of
There is only one State Supreme Court Judge facing a statewide “retention” vote November 4, 2008. The five Appellate Judges only appear on the ballot in their respective districts. Missouri Family Network (MFN) makes the following recommendations:
Missouri
State Supreme Court (On all ballots statewide):
Patricia Breckenridge - Vote “NO”
Eastern
District Appellate Court (Retention Questions in Eastern areas only):
Robert G. Dowd, Jr. - Vote “NO”
Kurt S. Odenwald - Vote “YES”
Roy L. Richter - Vote “NO”
Southern
District Appellate Court (Retention Questions in Southern areas only):
Gary W. Lynch - Vote “YES”
Daniel E. Scott - Vote “YES”
SPECIAL
ALERT
VOTERS UNDER ATTACK AS LAWYERS SEEK TO TAKE
OVER COURTS VOTE “NO” ON QUESTION 1 IN GREENE COUNTY MO
This
Local Ballot Question is for Greene County Voters Only. Due to its importance - please forward this
to any contacts you have in Greene County (the Springfield Area).
In
Greene County, Missouri, trial attorneys and national left-wing interests
including George Soros of MoveOn.org have conspired to put a question on the
ballot that deceives voters and seeks to take away voters power in favor of
lawyers picking judges.
DON’T BE FOOLED! VOTE NO ON QUESTION 1!
Question
1 is a perfect example of the lack of truthfulness that the left wing interests
use to try to take over the courts. Question 1 proponents would have you
believe this question is supposed to be a non-partisan answer to having judges
elected by the people of Greene County thereby taking politics out of judicial
offices.
In
fact, Question 1 wants to set up a system of picking judges that is highly
political and lacking in any accountability to the people. The secret group picking judges is dominated
by left-wing groups that want activist judges; judges who will approve gay marriage,
abortion rights, and huge jury awards for frivolous lawsuits!
Under
the Missouri Plan which Question 1 wants to bring to Greene County, 20 of the
last 21 nominees to the Supreme Court have been associated with the Democratic
Party. That doesn’t sound like a
non-partisan and fair way to pick judges!
If
Question 1 brings the Missouri Plan to Greene Count, it will take the election
of judges from voters hands and put
the selection of judges into a highly partisan, secret, lawyer-dominated
commission. Election is better than
selection.
Question
1 is a solution in search of a problem: electing judges works for Greene County
and there is no allegation of otherwise.
Every four years, judges make their cases
directly to the people of
Please,
please, vote “No” on Question 1 and keep secret partisan politics out of our
courts, And, please pass this on to anyone you know who lives in Green County
Missouri. For more information visit
www.StopQuestion1.com.
Special
Reminder…
GENERAL ELECTION
BALLOT QUESTIONS
A
Conservative Analysis of All Five Statewide Ballot Questions!
There are 5 statewide ballot questions on the November 4, 2008 Missouri General Election ballot. Two are proposed Constitutional Amendments and three are Propositions to change state statutes. Missouri Family Network endorses the following votes:
Constitutional Amendment 1 English as the Official Language Vote YES
Constitutional Amendment 4 Storm water Infrastructure Bonds
Vote
YES
Proposition A Casino
Expansion With More False Promises Vote NO
Proposition B Political
Payback Threatens Home Healthcare Vote NO
Proposition C Green
Mandates Threaten All Utility Services Vote NO
For an analysis of each of the five statewide ballot questions visit www.MissouriFamilyNetwork.net. Each question is analyzed according to the actual text of the proposed Amendment or Proposition, not just the summary question (which is all you will see in the voting booth). To view the full text of any of these measures, please go to the official website of the Elections Division of the Missouri Secretary of State’s Office: http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2008ballot/
For more information on Missouri’s 2008 General Election go to: www.MissouriFamilyNetwork.net.
Remember
- Voting is a Blessing not a Burden!
The Judicial System in Missouri and Other Comments
The
nature of the judicial system in Missouri shrouds judges from effective performance
review by voters. In the absence of
high-profile cases, the only barometer of a judge’s performance prior to their
facing a “retention” vote from citizens requires constant monitoring of
their cases and the judgments they hand down.
Each
case demands a complete understanding of the laws related to the case. No
judge should engage in any “judicial activism” (making up fanciful
interpretations of law to fit their personal whims) but must adhere to the ‘rule
of law’ and “judicial restraint” (judging according to the legislated law)
leaving the policy debates of law to the Legislature.
Due
to the fact that a “Judicial Commission” takes applications, interviews,
and actually selects “finalists” limits the Governor from selecting
judges in a true publicly accountable manner.
Who knows the personalities and politics of these Commissions? The Governor may only select one of three
names handed to him!
Even
the pro-life stance of an appointing Governor may not reflect accurately on a
given Judge’s performance. Listed below
are the pro-life or pro-abortion positions of those Governors who appointed
these Judges. However, the true test is
if the Judge is pro-life and “judicially restrained”!
Democrat
Governors Carnahan and Holden maintained a mandatory “pro-abortion” litmus
test for all their judicial nominees over their twelve years of
administrations! Most of these judges need to be replaced.
Any
time three finalists are placed before the Governor for him to make a choice,
there is a very, very high political probability that at least one will be
pro-abortion. On the other hand, those
finalists who would have been set before former governors may have
provided slim pickings for pro-life administrations.
John
Ashcroft appointed judges based on judicial restraint and are generally okay
but may not have turned out as good as he would have liked. Appointments
Governor
Ashcroft made in his latter years
administration were more seriously screened but he could only pick from the
three candidates placed before him for each appointment.
Appointments
made going back to Governors Bond and Teasdale (yes they still face retention
every twelve years and not all have retired yet) were picked before the
contemporary focus on judicial activism and pro-life/pro-abortion debates had
become major political issues.
Today
Governor Mat Blunt has had little opportunity to appoint Judges except from
limited names handed to him from the Judicial Commissions. Under the non-partisan court plan Gov. Blunt
can only choose between the three finalists placed before him in making these
appointments. Even though he has
repeatedly stressed concern over “judicial activism” Gov. Blunt cannot place a
pro-life judge on the court unless one survives the process to be submitted
among the three finalist placed before him!
Supreme
Court Judge Patricia Breckenridge promised to behave on the court when selected
by Gov. Blunt, and he offered her praise (over the other finalists) however,
the Governor also stated in the same press release that he did not have faith
in the Judicial Commission to put forward any candidates that could be
completely trusted. (No direct quotes - to see Gov. Blunt’s press release
dated 9-7-07, visit the official web site for Missouri Governor Matt Blunt.)
For
those concerned with Pro-Life issues and the appointment of Missouri Judges, Jay
Nixon, Democrat candidate for Governor, is PRO-ABORTION and expected to select
judges who share his Pro-Abortion stance.
Kenny
Hulshof, Republican candidate for Governor, is PRO-LIFE and is
expected to select Pro-Life judges if a judicial commission allows him.
Judges
of the Missouri Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal and Circuit Courts in the St.
Louis and Kansas City regions are appointed under the Missouri Nonpartisan
Court Plan. These judges are not elected
to office, are not officially aligned with any political party and do not
campaign as other “candidates”. They are not “elected” to office in the traditional
sense.
Retention
questions related to these judgeships are nonpartisan ballot questions.
When voters go to the polls they will be asked to vote YES, or NO, to
retain them or not to retain them. Non-profit
organizations and churches are at complete liberty to speak to these retention
questions just as they are regarding any other non-partisan ballot question.
Judges
of the Supreme Court of Missouri, along with all of the Missouri Court of
Appeals (all three districts) and the circuit courts in Clay County, Jackson
County, Platte
County, the City of St. Louis and
St. Louis Co. (Kansas City & St. Louis areas) are all appointed through
what is called the Nonpartisan Court Plan.
The procedures for these
various appointments and any
opportunity for voters to retain these judges are outlined in the Missouri
State Constitution which operates as follows:
Those
seeking to be appointed to fill a vacancy in the appellate or Supreme Court
bench apply to an Appellate Judicial Commission, which is comprised of the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, three citizens appointed by the governor
and three attorneys selected by The Missouri Bar. The Commission will review all the submitted
applications and conducts interviews before it selects a panel of three
finalists to nominate to the governor. The governor must select from one
of those three individuals sometime within 60 days to fill the judicial vacancy. Failure of the governor to make the final
appointment would shift the responsibility back to the Commission itself.
Once an appointment is made, that
new judge takes office. The new judge then must sit for a retention vote
at the next general election after he or she has been in office for
at least one year. If at least
50 percent of the voters in that election agree to retain the judge on the
ballot, they would then serve a full term on the bench. For all appellate
judges, including the Supreme Court,
the term would be for 12 years. (For circuit judges, the term is six years, and
for associate circuit judges, the term is four years.) This
applies despite the length of time
remaining in the term of the judge that for whatever reason has vacated the bench
and is being replaced.
The
Missouri State Constitution requires that judges appointed to either the
Supreme Court or the Missouri Court of Appeals to be at least 30 years old (may
serve until 70),
licensed to practice law in the
state, be a citizen of the
Know
Your Circuit Courts
Please
be sure to research your local circuit and state appellate division judges that
will appear on the ballot in your local area!
Examples:
Circuit Judge - Circuit 11 Division 1 (St. Charles) Ted House, Democrat -
Pro-Life. A well known pro-life advocate during his years serving in the
Missouri Legislature. Opposed his party’s pro-abortion leadership and control
while serving in both the House and Senate!
Circuit
Judge - Circuit 36 (Poplar Bluff) Mark L. Richardson, Republican - Pro-Life
Voted 100% pro-life during his
tenure in the Missouri House of Representatives!
Nonpartisan
Judge - Assoc. Circuit Judge - Circuit No. 6 (Platte Co.) Gary Witt, (Nonpartisan)
- Pro-Abortion. Served in the Missouri
House as a committed Democrat who consistently voted pro-abortion!
Nonpartisan
Judges - Assoc. Circuit Judge - Circuit No. 16 (Lee’s Summit) Vernon Scoville,
(Nonpartisan) - Pro-Life. Also served in
the Missouri House as a pro-life Democrat!
It
is very important that citizens understand the state’s court system and
investigate the judges who are either running for judgeships or (for those who
were appointed to the bench as described earlier) are facing retention votes. These men & women will be on your local
ballot in the General Election, November 4, 2008.
Some of the better sources of information is to contact a variety of law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and trustworthy attorneys to ask about a sitting judge’s “law & order” attitudes. It is important to note that many of these folks may not be willing to openly criticize a sitting judge but may be very willing to dialogue with you about a judge’s character and/or other qualifications. (See questions below.)
In
the Missouri Legislature it would take a minimum of 82 members of the House
agreeing with 18 or more Senators, who together could successfully navigate the
parliamentary procedures of the
Missouri General Assembly to advance liberal social policies, such as
homosexual marriage, in our state. (A majority of both bodies.)
In
the state court system only one out of 322 judges is needed to do the same
thing. An activist court decision would
have to go through at least one, or more, Appellate Judges whose decision
either way would then go to the State Supreme Court. The pivotal question hinges on who sits on
these courts? What would 4 out of 7
members of the high court do? Since its
establishment in 1820, Missouri’s Supreme Court had been both politically and
socially conservative – until 2004! For
over 180 years our state had maintained a judicially restrained court – up
until just four years ago!
With
the appointment of Judge Richard B. Teitelman to the Supreme Court by Governor
Bob Holden (his second appointee) the court swung to a liberal domination
for the first time in
The
responsibility of voting for Missouri judges is more compelling than ever!
Circuit
Judges
As
far as your Circuit Judges are concerned, you will have to research
them for your own area. There are 45 Circuit Districts with hundreds
of judges.
MFN
recommends you call local law enforcement - sheriff
deputies, prosecutor(s), and any trustworthy attorneys (lawyers from your
area churches who have a reputation of maintaining a consistent
Biblical worldview). Ask these people
who interact with the circuit judges about their experiences and
knowledge.
- Ask about how a judge either
helps or hinders law enforcement?
- Are they willing to get up in
the middle of the night to sign search warrants, or do they give the
sheriff grief over being troubled?
- Do they help in the fight
against meth or are they part of the problem?
- Do they treat people
differently depending on which side of town they come from?
- Do they tend to protect
certain popular family names, or otherwise treat them with kit gloves?
Law
enforcement will not openly campaign for or against the judges they
are going to be standing in front of.
But after going through these kinds of questions you will be able
to discern any significant problems or outstanding traits that will help
guide you and your friends in voting in an intelligent manner that is
pleasing to the Lord.
Judicial
Activism
An
“activist” judge is one who makes political decisions - not legal judgments. When a Judge steps outside the parameters of the
laws he is to maintain, he assumes the role of a legislator making law rather
than a judge who determines if or how a law has been violated.
Legislators debate and deliberate as a body of several elected representatives
charged with making the law. Judges are only supposed to enforce those
laws and no more. Thus, any judge who, for any reason, ignores a law he
disagrees with or abuses his authority by imposing the power of his position to
enforce legal frameworks that do not otherwise exist in duly adopted laws and
ordinances, is acting outside the “rule-of-law” - he is an “activist”, not a
judge.
Judicial
Restraint
A
“restrained” judge is one who discerns legal judgments from within the “rule-of-law”. Whenever a judge restrains himself from
acting on his own personal preferences and applies only the “rule-of-law” in
discerning legal judgments, he allows those properly elected to legislate the
parameters of the law. Public policy remains within the domain of those
public bodies open to public discourse and influence. The role of a Judge
is not to make law but to enforce those laws properly deliberated before
various bodies of duly elected representatives charged with the role of
lawmakers. These Judges set aside their personal preferences in order to
enforce the “rule-of-law”. Such restraint qualifies one as a
trustworthy Judge.
Judicial
Discernment
Voters
are asked to elect or retain judges in every election cycle. These are
elections, complete with all the high rhetoric surrounding every other
political contest. Some have tried to redefine inappropriate judicial
activism as mere disgruntlement with a particular judge of the judicial system.
Falsely claiming that ‘activism’ is a “straw man” that doesn’t truly exist in
Missouri courts, this “spin” turns the table on the critics. Anyone who raises questions about judges who
step out of their bounds of authority is accused of being the bad guy. The
goal of this “spin” is to make the critic look like a fool who is unwilling to
accept the authority of the court only because they are unhappy with the
outcome of a case. (Equally erroneous are charges of activism from folks
who really are just unhappy with the outcome of a court case(s).)
Citizens must be cautious to understand the parameters of the various laws related to cases they are concerned about. A conservative Judge who engages in activism is just as wrong as a liberal who would do the same thing. The performance of a Judge is not to be evaluated by the popularity of the outcomes of a given court. Whether you like and support - or dislike and oppose - the outcome of a court ruling has nothing to do with declaring a Judge to be a liberal “activist”, or a “restrained” conservative. Discerning a Judge’s “judicial activism” or “judicial restraint” depends on his adhering to the “rule-of-law”, or if he is taking the law into his own hand to remold it with political decisions according to his personal preference.
Publisher’s Note…
Please help Missouri Family Network (MFN) defend
the traditional family in Missouri. An investment in MFN is an investment
in the future of our culture. Their ministries have a direct impact on our society,
our children, and grandchildren regarding: * Abortion & Sanctity of Life *
Bioethics * Crime * Drugs & Alcohol * Education Policy & Home Schooling
* Family * Gambling * Government Ethics * Homosexuality * Pornography
* Private Property & Family Farms * Religious Liberty * Second Amendment *
Small Business * Socialism * Tax Policy * and many other topics which affect
the family.
As you know, fuel costs, postage, phones,
utilities, etc., continue to increase and thus the cost to operate their
ministry continues to climb as well. MFN has ongoing budget needs and
your support is vital to their existence. They are not a tax-exempt
ministry.
If you appreciate the ongoing work of
Missouri Family Network please consider supporting this ministry with a
financial contribution. MFN also accepts
donations of cars, trucks, tractors, and other farm implements, as well as
homes and property.
MFN now accepts online donations via PayPal
and those interested in contributing can do so by clicking on PayPal on their
website www.MissouriFamilyNetwork.net. You can also donate by credit card or
echeck from your bank account at http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr.
Donations to MFN can also be mailed to:
Kerry
K. Messer
Missouri Family Network
P.O. Box 1288
Festus, MO 63028
To contact Missouri Family Network you can
e-mail them at mofamnet@ldd.net or call (573) 483-2007 (Home & office)
or (314) 971-2477 (Cell/Jefferson City).
