Twitter Talk on Possible Conflict Between General Assembly and the Courts
A state representative, the head of a Tea Party group, and the leader of a conservative think tank debate possible solutions to South Carolina's ballot mess.
In a story Monday on Patch, former Gov. Mark Sanford expressed disappointment about what had become of the election transparency bill he signed in 2010.
Sanford had harsh words for the legislature, with which he often clashed while in office.
But Sanford also suggested that the the relationship between the state legislature and the courts be reviewed. The state Supreme Court, for example, is appointed by members of the legislature at the recommendation of a commission. The legislature also gets its funding by approval of the legislature.
Sanford said this arrangement is set-up to benefit incumbents and that the Supreme Court's May decision to boot hundreds of candidates from ballots, while following precedent, had the added benefit of helping the very people who pay the court's salaries.
When the story ran on Monday, State Rep. Leon Stavrinakis (D - 119) took issue with Sanford's implications on Twitter. He was subsequently engaged in discussion by Ashley Landess of the South Carolina Policy Council and Talbert Black, Jr., of the Palmetto Liberty Political Action Commitee.
Landess and Black think that judges should be appointed by the governor, while Stavrinakis isn't convinced that would solve any questions about conflicts of interest.
Their conversation, condensed by Twitter, is above.
Jim Hargett
8:42 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
After being in the audience of court hearings in Columbia about ballot cases concerning the upstate and being vey active in getting names back on the ballot for the general election, I am convinced that we need the governor to choose our judges. The legislature has too many hidden agendas fueling their decisions, including the opportunity to drop out of the legislature with 'good ole boy' markers with all their legislative buddies over the years. These markers afford legislators the opportunity to gain a lifetime (lucrative!) judicial appointment. This reason alone is enough to agree with Mark over Leon.
reg
9:02 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
I'd love to agree were it not for who our current governor is. She's already made appointments, endorsements, decisions - even deals that negatively affect our state's economy (ex., Savannah vs. Chas) - based solely on campaign donations.
mason henry
9:05 pm on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Without the rule of law, the vote means nothing. Mob (or majority) rule prevails in every anarchy. The united States created a federal republic and guaranteed only that a republican (small "r") government would be required of every State, a form of government that does not necessitate that a majority prevail for basic "natural" rights to be respected. To have designs to do otherwise than secure basic rights requires that one be motivated by whatever one wants, whether or not someone else is harmed, so long as one can convince a majority to support it. This is depravity and not "good" government, but of such is the endless legislative debate over who gets what.