Today’s news:

Supremes sign off on our boss-picked judges

The Brooklyn Paper

The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously upheld New York’s “smoke-filled” system of choosing trial judges — a case that originated out of Brooklyn’s cronyism-driven Democratic machine.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the 9–0 decision, signed off on a system that allows party regulars to pick judge nominees in closed conventions — and then allows the nominees to face little or no opposition in the general election.

“A political party has a First Amendment right to limit its membership as it wishes and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform,” Scalia wrote. “Party conventions, with their attendant ‘smoke-filled rooms’ and domination by party leaders, have long been an accepted manner of selecting party candidates.”

Justice John Paul Stevens added a brief opinion that quoted former Justice Thurgood Marshall: “The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.”

The case originated in Brooklyn after then-Civil Court judge Margarita Lopez Torres said county Democratic leaders blocked her from getting the party’s nomination for a Supreme Court judgeship because she refused to hire people they recommended.

Three years later, Lopez Torres said party bosses offered her a second chance if she would hire a leader’s daughter. She refused.

Two courts ruled in Lopez Torres’s favor and threw out New York’s system, agreeing that it is very difficult for candidates to get on the ballot if they don’t have support of the party leaders.

But Scalia’s ruling said there is nothing unconstitutional about such a process.

The system’s opponents “complain not of the state law, but of the voters’ (and their elected delegates’) preference for the choices of the party leadership,” Scalia said.

Critics have said the conventions are patronage-driven affairs in which allies of party leaders are rewarded with judgeships and all others are shut out.

Indeed, the appeals court said that between 1990 and 2002, almost half the state’s elections for trial judges were uncontested, calling them “little more than ceremony.”

— with Associated Press

Pin It
Print this story Permalink

Reader Feedback

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not BrooklynPaper.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to BrooklynPaper.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Links