America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by Stinkdyr. 33 replies replies.
Trying to buy the court
rfenst Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459

By TBO.COM | Staff
Published: October 04, 2012 Updated: October 04, 2012 - 12:00 AM

The new stealth campaign against three Florida Supreme Court justices is being backed by those meddling right-wing billionaires from Wichita, Charles and David Koch.

They couldn't care less about Florida, but they love to throw their money around.

Last week they uncorked the first of a series of commercials from their political action committee, Americans for Prosperity. The targets are Justices R. Fred Lewis, Barbara Pariente and Peggy Quince.

They were three of the five-vote majority that in 2010 knocked down a half-baked amendment slapped together by state lawmakers seeking to nullify the federal Affordable Health Care Act.

The Florida Supreme Court upheld lower court decisions in finding that the proposed amendment contained "misleading and ambiguous language," the hallmark of practically everything produced by this Legislature. Stoned chimpanzees have a keener grasp of constitutional law.

Conservative groups have gone after local justices before. In Iowa, a place which has nothing but vowels in common with Florida, three state justices were fired by voters after being vilified for ruling against a ban on gay marriage.

On the November ballot, Lewis, Pariente and Quince are up for merit retention, meaning voters can choose to retain them or not. This simple system was put in place to keep the state's high court above the sleaze of political races.

The mission of the Kochs, hiding as always behind their super PAC, is to get the three justices dumped at the polls so Gov. Rick Scott can appoint replacements. This is worth repeating: If the Kochs have their way, Rick Scott gets to pack the Supreme Court with his own hand-picked crew. Yikes is right.

The head of the Florida chapter of Americans for Prosperity is a person called Slade O'Brien, whose job is to keep a straight face while saying things like: "We're not advocating for the election or defeat of any of the justices. What we're attempting to do is call more attention to them advocating from the bench."

Meanwhile, the state GOP's executive board is less coy. It voted to oppose the retention of Quince, Lewis and Pariente, branding them "too extreme."

Well, let's have a peek at these dangerous radicals. Justice Pariente, 63, has been on the court for 15 years. She was graduated from George Washington University Law School and clerked in Fort Lauderdale under U.S. District Judge Norm Roettger, who was no softie.

Justice Lewis, 64, who was graduated **** laude from the University of Miami Law School, has been on the court almost 14 years. Both he and Pariente were appointed by Gov. Lawton Chiles, not exactly a wild-eyed liberal.

Justice Quince, also 64, is the first African-American woman on the Supreme Court. A graduate of the Columbus School of Law at Catholic University, she worked for years prosecuting death-penalty cases in the state attorney general's office. In 1999, she was jointly selected for the high court by Chiles and that wacky left-winger, Jeb Bush.

Twice before Floridians have voted to keep these justices, but now the Kochs from Wichita say they know better. You won't see David or Charlie in any of the campaign commercials because they don't like people to know they're prying.

Their multinational fortune comes from oil refineries, fertilizers, cattle, commodities, chemicals and paper mills. Next time you reach for Angel Soft toilet paper, think of the Koch brothers.

Both are MIT grads, philanthropists, unabashedly ultraconservative and anti-Obama. They're spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to defeat the President and lesser officeholders all over the country who won't bend to their will. Some Florida Republicans — respected judges and lawyers — are disturbed by the sneak attack on the Supreme Court, which they view as a bald attempt to politicize the judiciary.

The two other justices who voted against the inept Obamacare amendment were similarly singled out two years ago, when they were up for merit retention. Tea Party groups bought TV time blasting justices Jorge Labarga and James Perry, and urging voters to remove them from the court. It didn't work.

Labarga was retained with about 59 percent of the vote, Perry with 61 percent. Those aren't bad margins, considering that the justices can't campaign in their own defense.

This time is different because Americans for Prosperity has a bottomless war chest to use against Lewis, Pariente and Quince. Be assured that Gov. Scott is rooting for the Kochs. He'd love to have three openings to fill on the court.

The last thing these guys want is fair judges who know the law; they want partisan judges who'll obediently support their political agenda. It's worse than just trying to buy an election. It's trying to hijack Florida's justice system at the highest levels.

And all the Angel Soft in the world won't wipe away the stink.




Carl Hiaasen is a columnist for The Miami Herald.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,610
F' 'em.

I will not be voting for them.

They've been at the trough waaaay too long.


The rest of the article is political conjecture. I haven't seen or heard an ad dumping on the 3 POS with robes.

You want Justice?


Bark about how they scammed the Florida taxpayer with their Taj Mahal chambers and courtrooms while the state is in economic shambles! They should be voted out off office regardless of this mythical Kansas connection!
ZRX1200 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,682
What a *ahem* well written article.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,610
While most state courts face harsh budget cuts, the 1st District Court of Appeal gets a $48 million 'Taj Mahal'


The 15 judges working in the new 1st District Court of Appeal building will have 60-inch LCD flat screen TVs and private kitchens and bathrooms. Lawmakers say Chief Judge Paul Hawkes and Judge Brad Thomas lobbied furiously for the building.

The 112,000-square-foot 1st District Court of Appeal building, approved on the last day of the 2007 session, is costing more than $425 a square foot. Most state buildings cost $250 per square foot.

With budgets slashed, courts across Florida have laid off staff, quit buying law books and curtailed building maintenance. Programs like drug courts, which have helped thousands of people stay out of trouble, have been limited. Mice run rampant in a Tampa courthouse, while in West Palm Beach judges struggle to get courtroom temperatures below 90 degrees because of a malfunctioning air-conditioning system. Meantime, in Tallahassee, the 1st District Court of Appeal is building a courthouse that some call a "Taj Mahal.''

Scheduled to be completed in November, it's a $48 million behemoth in which each judge will get a 60-inch LCD flat screen television in chambers (trimmed in mahogany), a private bathroom (featuring granite countertops) and a kitchen (complete with microwave and refrigerator).

How did it get funded? Like many things that gain life in Tallahassee, the courthouse grew out of a last-minute amendment on the last day of a legislative session. The funding for the courthouse was buried in the middle of a 142-page transportation bill, approved the last day of the 2007 session.

The state had never floated a bond issue to build a courthouse, but Sen. Victor Crist of Tampa attached the amendment that allowed the court to float a $33.5 million bond issue.

Several legislators say they were not aware the courthouse amendment was in the transportation bill when they voted on it.

Former Rep. Lorrane Ausley of Tallahassee voted against the bill, but she says she did not know about the amendment that was added to build the courthouse in her hometown.

"It was safer to vote no on things like that given the lack of transparency on stuff like this,'' Ausley said last week. "I do recall that the judges worked the halls pretty hard. I don't think the Legislature ever intended something like this.''

Judges as lobbyists

The 1st District Court, with 15 judges, is the state's largest, hearing appeals of cases from Jacksonville to Pensacola, and it hears most appeals involving the state.

The court began looking at a new building in 2006 after rejecting the possibility of expanding its existing, rent-free building in downtown Tallahassee.

Lawmakers say two 1st District judges, Chief Judge Paul Hawkes and Judge Brad Thomas, lobbied furiously for the new building. The two spent so much time walking the halls of the Legislature that some lawmakers wondered when they had time to be judges.

Hawkes said that in addition to the new courthouse, he and Thomas lobbied several issues important to the court.

Hawkes and Thomas made use of their legislative and budget experience. Hawkes, a former House member, was once the GOP point man on the budget and helped write House rules. (His son, Jeremiah Hawkes, was general counsel for the House when the construction bond issue was approved.)

Thomas, a longtime Senate staffer, was staff director for the Senate's Criminal Justice Committee when Crist was chairman. Thomas also worked in Gov. Jeb Bush's budget office.

Bush appointed Hawkes to the appellate court in 2003 and Thomas in 2005.

Crist said he attached the court construction amendment to the transportation bill at the request of Senate President Ken Pruitt.

Pruitt denies playing any role in the measure.

The current Senate appropriations chairman, J.D. Alexander of Winter Haven, says Crist was the principal senator driving the construction measure, with heavy lobbying from Hawkes and Thomas.

Crist says it was pitched to him as a collaboration between the courts, Florida State University and the Department of Management Services, or DMS.

Florida Supreme Court Justice Fred Lewis, who was chief judge in 2007, says he was shocked to discover that the 1st District Court of Appeal judges, lawmakers and FSU had reached a "behind the scenes'' deal that approved a bond issue, gave the old courthouse to the FSU Law School and eliminated office space in the old building for the Office of State Courts Administrator.

Lewis said that when he discovered the backroom deal, he tried to set up meetings with legislators and FSU officials, but no one would discuss the deal or consider a change.

"I was snookered,'' the former chief justice said.

Lewis said he asked Gov. Charlie Crist to veto the budget item, to no avail. Gov. Crist (no relation to the state senator) says he does not recall the request.

Hawkes said Lewis is wrong, there was nothing secret about the plan for the new building. He said FSU's political clout among lawmakers led to the decision to give the entire building to the law school.

Lewis said he was misled when Sen. Crist stood on the Senate floor and said the budget included money for a new district courthouse, with plans for the state court administrators to move into the old building and share it with FSU.

More shocking than the bond issue was the news that the new courthouse will cost the state courts an additional $1.7 million a year in rent to be paid to DMS, the state agency that owns the new building. The old building was rent-free to the court.

In addition to that rent, the courts will have to continue paying $287,000 a year in rent for offices housing the court system's administrative staff, which would have been free but for the deal.

Some state judges bitterly resent having to find $2 million in a budget already strained to the breaking point.

"We lost a rent-free building that now belongs to FSU and we are stuck with $1.7 million a year in rent,'' Hillsborough Chief Judge Manuel Menendez Jr. said. "And now some legislators are saying we don't need money because we've got this Taj Mahal.''

You cut, we'll build

The new courthouse is going up on 15 acres in Southwood, a St. Joe development, about 6 miles southeast of the capitol. It has rankled judges around Florida who have had to lay off staff, add to case loads and cut salaries.

Budget cuts since 2007, with more cuts anticipated in the coming years, threaten to push the state court system back 30 years, according to the Florida Supreme Court's 2010 report.

Already more than 280 court jobs have been lost, and trial courts recently were directed to come up with suggestions for additional cuts of as much as 25 percent.

Because most of the courts' budget is for personnel, a cut that large would force most courts to lay off about one-third of their employees, said Pinellas-Pasco Chief Judge J. Thomas McGrady.

Some of the judges who will move into the new building say they are embarrassed by extravagances they've heard about, including the 60-inch flat screen TVs in every judge's chambers and other conveniences, including a fitness room equipped with exercise machines and a mirrored wall.

The 112,000-square-foot courthouse will house 112 full- and part-time employees.

The exterior of the new building with a dome and columns is similar to Michigan's Supreme Court building. That's because three members of the court flew to Michigan in 2008 to tour the building with the contractor and architect on the 1st District Court of Appeal courthouse.

The trip, in a private plane, was paid for by the builder, Peter Brown Construction Co. Then-Chief Justice Edwin Browning questioned the need for the trip and said there was no money in the court's budget to pay for it.

The contractor offered to pay after officials from DMS also refused to pay for the trip.

A review of more than 1,300 e-mails shows repeated wrangling between the 1st District judges, DMS, the builder and Barnett Fronczak Barlowe Architects of Tallahassee.

DMS caved to demands from Hawkes to include the judges in every decision made on the building, and even agreed to omit the per-square-foot cost from an overall description of the project, an unprecedented action.

Most state buildings cost about $250 a square foot; the courthouse is costing more than $425 a square foot. Hawkes says it's unfair to compare the square footage cost in a building with so much public space.

The e-mails make clear that DMS was not thrilled with the idea of a dome over the main courtroom, but the judges wanted a building that would "make an impact on the public,'' with a rotunda and columns across the front.

A faux finish is being applied to the columns in the rotunda to make them look like the marbled columns that are seen in many European museums.

Hawkes pushed for a building worthy of the court's "important mission'' and said legislators adopted the judges' vision of a courthouse like the Michigan Supreme Court building instead of just "another brick building.''

He was asked about the jeers of those who call it a Taj Mahal.

"It's a nice facility,'' Hawkes said. "The amazing thing is that most people are impressed because it has a nice design … a nice-looking building at a bargain price. To quote one of our judges, 'Ugly concrete cost the same as attractive concrete.' ''

No detail has been too small for Hawkes' attention, including the pegs in a robing room where judges will hang their black robes, shelves, wall colors, wood trim, cushioned benches and granite countertops.

Hawkes surfed a garden furnishing Internet site to find chairs for an employee break room and sent out examples of acceptably heavy chairs.

Sen. Crist said he attended several meetings between the court and DMS, trying to keep the peace. "The bottom line is neither side likes the other,'' he said.

At one point DMS officials urged the court not to invite "ad hoc members'' of the building committee to meetings "to avoid airing the dirty laundry'' in front of others. Hawkes acknowledges that initially there were problems, but he says everyone is getting along well now.

Some longtime lawyers in Tallahassee have suggested the state needs to recall former Gov. Claude Kirk, who left office in 1971. Faced with the construction of a fancy new Capitol building, Kirk suggested the state was building "princely and ponderous palaces for political potentates.''

Lucy Morgan can be reached at [email protected].


[Last modified: Aug 09, 2010 12:18 PM]

Copyright 2010 Tampa Bay Times

rfenst Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
DrMaddVibe wrote:
F' 'em.

I will not be voting for them.

They've been at the trough waaaay too long.


The rest of the article is political conjecture. I haven't seen or heard an ad dumping on the 3 POS with robes.

You want Justice?


Bark about how they scammed the Florida taxpayer with their Taj Mahal chambers and courtrooms while the state is in economic shambles! They should be voted out off office regardless of this mythical Kansas connection!



Look, I know the article is "way over the top". That's why I posted it!!!

As to economic crisis- they didn't cause it and can't help fix it- don't blame people for something they have no control over. As to the courthouse and chambers, if you think they are excessive, which is a joke because they don't build them- the legislature and local governments do. perhaps we should just sell them off, huh?

This is a more serious sub-issue than who our next President will be. A very serious a very serious constitutional issue that is non-partisan over the place-newspaper, TV and Billboards. If your definition of POS is, is "anyone in a robe," then they are POS...

They have been there because the life appointment is supposed to take politics and money out of the picture of doing their jobs. Take another read of the Federalist Papers about this. Hell, take a real good look at the Bible and what god requires of a good judge or justice!

Justice Lewis, one of the three, is extraordinarily bright and a great Justice. He has a tremendous reputation all over the country for his off-the-bench accomplishments teaching about the Constitution and Federalist Papers. Go to WIKI and read about him- its a bit of a fluff job, but the truth is there for all to see- if they want to look. I have personally met him and he exemplifies the type of person we all want on the FSC.

The current alternative is one governor picking three of seven Justices at once- based on politics, not impartiality or ability. The type of massive intentional"stacking" none of us ever want. If one happens to only cafe to agree with that governor's politics, one will think it is a great thing, but in the long run it is only further destruction of checks and balances-which is way more important than the little picture of politics.

No one deserves their last chance at justice decided by a Justice who has "debt" to others or ho has to raise money to run against an opponent, or who is looking over their back all the time at what the legislature, special interests and industries want, because they can be taken off their job at any election. That is not impartiality.

(I will have access to a video of an impromptu speech he gave earlier this week- keep an open mind until you watch it, then decide based on the man and his facts.)
rfenst Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
As to #5:

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Scheming special interests, !st DCA Justices, legislatures and the governor are responsible for this. F them all. I didn't know about this until I just read your post....

But, take a look at who the one FSC Justice who opposed it is- my guy!!!





(Great irony that you posted this while I was typing my above post!)
DrMaddVibe Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,610
rfenst wrote:
As to #5:

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Scheming special interests, !st DCA Justices, legislatures and the governor are responsible for this. F them all. I didn't know about this until I just read your post....

But, take a look at who the one FSC Justice who opposed it is- my guy!!!





(Great irony that you posted this while I was typing my above post!)



Irony?


"Buying A Court"...WITH TAXPAYER'S DOLLARS!!!!!


Even with the ridiculous amount spent...it doesn't even make a blip on Owedumba's favorite gameshow...The Price Is Wrong Bitch!

We NEED term limits to rid ourselves of the leeches. See it for what it is.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,610
rfenst wrote:
They have been there because the life appointment is supposed to take politics and money out of the picture of doing their jobs. Take another read of the Federalist Papers about this. Hell, take a real good look at the Bible and what god requires of a good judge or justice!




Think


Didn't you post an article about dropping the Electoral College because your vote was more important than others?


Either you skipped out on the lessons or he's a real crummy teacher!


He can keep his robe...the bench stays...he goes.
rfenst Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Irony?


"Buying A Court"...WITH TAXPAYER'S DOLLARS!!!!!


Even with the ridiculous amount spent...it doesn't even make a blip on Owedumba's favorite gameshow...The Price Is Wrong Bitch!

We NEED term limits to rid ourselves of the leeches. See it for what it is.


I don't have any idea what you are talking about. Buying a new courthouse and buying a judge are two different things.

Taxpayer dollars and litigants should pay for courthouses and their operation. Ridiculous amounts for luxury features are unacceptable. That, backroom deals and legislative games is what your article is about. And, the one Justice who spoke out against it is the one I am touting- for other reasons, not having known of that debacle or his taking a proper stand against it myself. That's rich. Thank you!

In all seriousness, please vote to retain Justus Lewis. I am dead serious on this one. Throwing him out of office just brings a new, untested replacement in with the likelihood of him/her not even being close to having the abilities to "stand in his shoes"...
rfenst Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Think


Didn't you post an article about dropping the Electoral College because your vote was more important than others?


Either you skipped out on the lessons or he's a real crummy teacher!


He can keep his robe...the bench stays...he goes.


NO.
I asked the question how people whose disenfranchised votes truly won't count, feel about it. Some interesting responses.

Getting rid of the electoral college is always an interesting discussion. However, that is NOT what the thread was about.
rfenst Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
"Mates, this is a viral email that I received today. I thought you all should know.


Remember to Vote “NO” on all Three Florida Supreme Court Justices on the 2012 ballot this November.

The names of the Florida Supreme Court Justices are:

Justice Barbara Pariente – Vote NO
Justice Fred Lewis – Vote NO
Justice Peggy Quince - Vote NO

These three Justices have frequently NOT represented conservative values in their decisions. In Florida our Supreme Court Justices have to run every six years on the November ballot to get a "yes" or a "no" vote in order to be kept on the court. They are NOT appointed for life as are Federal judges.

The 3 Justices on the 2012 Florida Supreme Court ballot have repeatedly taken LIBERAL positions in court and have all been appointed prior to a Republican Governor.

THIS NOVEMBER REMEMBER TO VOTE "NO" ON ALL THREE OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES RUNNING! Should they fail to get a passing vote, Republican Governor Rick Scott will then be able to replace them.

This is SO IMPORTANT - PLEASE pass this along to all those in Florida.

Thank you!"


ZRX1200 Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,682
Outrage?
rfenst Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
ZRX1200 wrote:
Outrage?


Sad for our state. Sad because it is supposed by law supposed to be non-partisan, but the Florida Republican Party's has come out against retention, something no responsible political party should have ever done. A terrible precedent has been set and the future of the state's entire appellate and supreme court structure will now be fair-game for partiality and politics. The alleged problem is liberal "legislation from the bench" yet the proposed, manufactured, solution is merely replacing the sitting "liberal" Justices with new, "conservative" Justices- who of course would NEVER "legislate from the bench". And, sad because the right is objectively lying to voters in its campaign...
ZRX1200 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,682
^ I hear you and agree. Both sides are equally guilty.

rfenst Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
ZRX1200 wrote:
^ I hear you and agree. Both sides are equally guilty.



The guilty act is the attemp to remove justices for anything other than incompetence or bad acts. I don't care how any justice rules, even if I hate the consequence, if bias and partiality aren't an obvious part of the equation.

**********************************************************************************************


"He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

...

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

....
jackconrad Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
Judges lack a deisire for self flagilation and are afraid to rule and get sued. The whole system needs overhauled and rules need to be put in place to limit frivilous Lawsuits.

BUT WHAT WE REALLY COULD USE IS NATIONAL LEGAL CARE !!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,610
rfenst wrote:
"Mates, this is a viral email that I received today. I thought you all should know.


Remember to Vote “NO” on all Three Florida Supreme Court Justices on the 2012 ballot this November.

The names of the Florida Supreme Court Justices are:

Justice Barbara Pariente – Vote NO
Justice Fred Lewis – Vote NO
Justice Peggy Quince - Vote NO

These three Justices have frequently NOT represented conservative values in their decisions. In Florida our Supreme Court Justices have to run every six years on the November ballot to get a "yes" or a "no" vote in order to be kept on the court. They are NOT appointed for life as are Federal judges.

The 3 Justices on the 2012 Florida Supreme Court ballot have repeatedly taken LIBERAL positions in court and have all been appointed prior to a Republican Governor.

THIS NOVEMBER REMEMBER TO VOTE "NO" ON ALL THREE OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES RUNNING! Should they fail to get a passing vote, Republican Governor Rick Scott will then be able to replace them.

This is SO IMPORTANT - PLEASE pass this along to all those in Florida.

Thank you!"





Thanks for passing that along!

I planned to do so!
HockeyDad Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,208
Vote em out!
rfenst Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Thanks for passing that along!

I planned to do so!






TALLAHASSEE — A Florida professor commissioned by the conservative Federalist Society to review controversial cases of the three Florida Supreme Court justices up for merit retention concluded Wednesday that some of the most loaded charges used by opponents against the justices are unfounded.

"There does not appear to be a pattern of unprincipled decision-making by any of the justices of the Florida Supreme Court,'' wrote Elizabeth Price Foley after analyzing nine controversial cases since 2000. "There are disagreements, true. But disagreements do not suggest that those with whom you disagree are unprincipled."

Although the Federalist Society does not take a position in the merit retention races, Foley said in a conference call with reporters that her review found that the controversial rulings "are in fact supported by some prior precedent and they do involve acceptable methods of legal reasoning."

Opponents who want to accuse them of judicial activism, she said, are "going to have a hard time making that label stick.''

Justices R. Fred Lewis, Barbara Pariente and Peggy Quince are on the ballot in a yes or no vote and, for the first time, the Florida Republican Party has mounted a campaign to encourage voters to reject them.

In a news release last month, the party said there is "collective evidence of judicial activism" against the justices and House Speaker Dean Cannon has accused them of using their rulings to legislate from the bench.

Conservative groups such as Americans For Prosperity and Restore Justice 2012 have also produced television and Web ads critical of the justices and accuse them of activist records.

Foley, a constitutional law scholar and law professor at Florida International University, said she chose cases that have been most frequently used by opponents seeking to oust the justices from the bench.

The goal was to provide "a balanced, honest analysis of the most contentious decisions about which these justices have been in agreement," she said.

Foley said, however, that the rulings should not be the only measure voters use when evaluating the justices in November. Other factors can include their demeanor, judicial education, strength of their judicial analysis and ideology.

Foley also said that the nine cases reveal a tension between the court and the Republican-led Legislature, particularly with its decision to reject constitutional amendments proposed by lawmakers because of misleading ballot summaries.

"The court will often rule one way and say very explicitly to the Florida Legislature you can fix this; you can avoid this problem if you'll only do x, y and z, and then, of course, the Florida Legislature won't do x, y and z,'' she said. "In some instances the Florida Supreme Court does feel somewhat handcuffed" and "wants clearer language."

She said there is a need for "better communication between the Florida Legislature and the Florida Supreme Court" especially as it relates to ballot amendments.

"We need to try as best we can some clear standard for ascertaining when something is misleading or not,'' she said.






http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/a-review-of-the-florida-supreme-court-2000-2012.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,610
Um...what part of "being at the trough too long" is unfounded for you?
HockeyDad Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,208
rfenst wrote:
TALLAHASSEE — A Florida professor commissioned by the conservative Federalist Society to review controversial cases of the three Florida Supreme Court justices up for merit retention concluded Wednesday that some of the most loaded charges used by opponents against the justices are unfounded.




So does that mean that some of the most loaded charges are founded?!
Stinkdyr Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
Vote all politicians and robed trough-feeders out of office every chance you get!!!!!!!!!


Beer
rfenst Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Um...what part of "being at the trough too long" is unfounded for you?


Want stare decisis and the stability it has brought to our society?Hang on to the good ones.
Avoid politics in the courts whenever possible.

Want quality justices (and judges)?
Hang on to the good ones.

Think the Taj Mahal is really bad?
Justice Lewis opposed it!


Think Justice Lewis feeds "at the trough" for the money?
He was a "cream of the crop" trial and appellate lawyer who has given up hundreds of thousand, if not a million dollars or more in income serving on the bench.





Funny how you don't complain about Ron Paul serving in the House of Reps for the last 15 years



(LOL. You are cracking me up!)
HockeyDad Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,208
It sounds like Mr Lewis will do fine with finding a new job, especially with the economy on the rise.
rfenst Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
HockeyDad wrote:
It sounds like Mr Lewis will do fine with finding a new job, especially with the economy on the rise.


Yep, even independent of the economy. But, him or any other justice earning a living is not the issue. they have all given up their better incomes to serve. It is just proof of sorts that he isn't on the job for the money. He is 65 and was actually going to retire, but this power grab that is an end-run around the state constitution has motivated him to fight like hell to protect what he believes in. He doesn't care who is chosen to replace him or by who the governor is at the time. He's just livid that the Republican Party and other special interests untruthfully thrust themselves in to a non-partisan issue of such great constitutional importance. My hunch is that if he is retained, he will retire shortly thereafter, feeling like he truly finished his career having fought his best for what he cherishes.
rfenst Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
Stinkdyr wrote:
Vote all politicians and robed trough-feeders out of office every chance you get!!!!!!!!!


Beer


Abolish ALL government and the state!!!
wheelrite Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119


Q: What do you call a smiling, courteous person at a bar association convention?
A: The caterer.

Q: What's the difference between a female lawyer and a pitbull?
A: Lipstick.

Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 100?
A: Your Honor.
Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50
A: Senator.

Q: What's the difference between an accountant and a lawyer?
A: Accountants know they're boring.

Q: What's the one thing that never works when it's fixed?
A: A jury.

Q: Why did God invent lawyers?
A: So that real estate agents would have someone to look down on.

Q: What's the difference between a vacuum cleaner and a lawyer on a motorcycle?
A: The vacuum cleaner has the dirt bag on the inside.

Q: What' the difference between a lawyer and a boxing referee?
A: A boxing referee doesn't get paid more for a longer fight.

Q: What's the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer?
A: A bad lawyer makes your case drag on for years. A good lawyer makes it last even longer.

Q: What's the difference between a jellyfish and a lawyer?
A: One's a spineless, poisonous blob. The other is a form of sea life.

Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a trampoline?
A: You take off your shoes before you jump on a trampoline.

Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a leech?
A: After you die, a leech stops sucking your blood.


Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and God?
A: God doesn't think he's a lawyer.

Q: How are an apple and a lawyer alike?
A: They both look good hanging from a tree.


Q: How can a pregnant woman tell that she's carrying a future lawyer?
A: She has an uncontrollable craving for bologna.


Q: How does an attorney sleep?
A: First he lies on one side, then he lies on the other.


Q: How many lawyer jokes are there?
A: Only three. The rest are true stories.


Q: How many lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Three, One to climb the ladder. One to shake it. And one to sue the ladder company.


Q: What are lawyers good for?
A: They make used car salesmen look good.


Q: What do dinosaurs and decent lawyers have in common?
A: They're both extinct.


Q: What do you call 25 attorneys buried up to their chins in cement?
A: Not enough cement.


Q: What do you call 25 skydiving lawyers?
A: Skeet.


Q: What do you call a lawyer gone bad.
A: Senator.


Q: What do you throw to a drowning lawyer?
A: His partners.


Q: What does a lawyer get when you give him Viagra?
A: Taller


Q: What's brown and looks really good on a lawyer?
A: A Doberman.


Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a liar?
A: The pronunciation.


Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a prostitute?
A: A prostitute will stop screwing you when you're dead.


Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a vulture?
A: The lawyer gets frequent flyer miles.


Q: What's the difference between a mosquito and a lawyer?
A: One is a blood-sucking parasite, the other is an insect.


Q: Why did God make snakes just before lawyers?
A: To practice.


Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a herd of buffalo?
A: The lawyer charges more.


Q: What's the difference between a tick and a lawyer?
A: The tick falls off when you are dead.


Q: What do you get when you cross a blonde and a lawyer?
A: I don't know. There are some things even a blonde won't do.


Q: Know how copper wire was invented?
A: Two lawyers were fighting over a penny.


Q: Why does the law society prohibit sex between lawyers and their clients?
A: To prevent clients from being billed twice for essentially the same service.


Q: What can a goose do, a duck can't, and a lawyer should?
A: Stick his bill up his ass.


Q: How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?
A: Their lips are moving.


Q: Why did New Jersey get all the toxic waste and California all the lawyers?
A: New Jersey got to pick first.


Q: Why don't lawyers go to the beach?
A: Cats keep trying to bury them.


Q: What do you call 5000 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A: A good start!


Q: What's the difference between a dead skunk in the road and a dead lawyer in the road?
A: There are skid marks in front of the skunk.


Q: Why won't sharks attack lawyers?
A: Professional courtesy.


Q: What do have when a lawyer is buried up to his neck in sand?
A: Not enough sand.


Q: How do you get a lawyer out of a tree?
A: Cut the rope.


Q: Do you know how to save a drowning lawyer?
A: Take your foot off his head.


Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a bucket of manure?
A: The bucket.


Q: What is the definition of a shame (as in "that's a shame")?
A: When a busload of lawyers goes off a cliff.

Q: What is the definition of a "crying shame"?
A: There was an empty seat.


Q: What do you get when you cross the Godfather with a lawyer?
A: An offer you can't understand


Q: Why is it that many lawyers have broken noses?
A: From chasing parked ambulances.


Q: Where can you find a good lawyer?
A: In the cemetery


Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a gigolo?
A: A gigolo only screws one person at a time.


Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a vampire?
A: A vampire only sucks blood at night.


Q: Why to lawyers wear neckties?
A: To keep the foreskin from crawling up their chins.


Q: What is the difference between a lawyer and a rooster?
A: When a rooster wakes up in the morning, its primal urge is to cluck defiance.


Q: How many law professors does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Hell, you need 250 just to lobby for the research grant.


Q: If you see a lawyer on a bicycle, why don't you swerve to hit him?
A: It might be your bicycle.


Q: What do you call a smiling, sober, courteous person at a bar association convention?
A: The caterer.


Q: Why do they bury lawyers under 20 feet of dirt?
A: Because deep down, they're really good people.


Q: Why are lawyers like nuclear weapons?
A: If one side has one, the other side has to get one. Once launched, they cannot be recalled. When they land, they screw up everything forever.


Q: What do lawyers and sperm have in common?
A: One in 3,000,000 has a chance of becoming a human being.
ZRX1200 Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,682
Rfenster.

Heck seeks to turn down Hill pension

BY STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Posted: Jun. 18, 2012 | 5:53 p.m.

WASHINGTON - Rep. Joe Heck tried late last year to withdraw from the retirement system set up for Congress, only to be told that was impossible. A 2003 law made participation mandatory.

So the Nevada Republican on Friday introduced a bill that would permit lawmakers to decline a pension, a move that could save taxpayers some money while allowing Heck and like-minded members of Congress to make a point about public service.

"If you don't want to receive a taxpayer-funded pension, you shouldn't be forced into receiving it," Heck said. "I didn't come to Congress to collect a pension."

With the bill, Heck joins a small number of House members who are seeking reforms in the Federal Employees' Retirement System, whose pensions for lawmakers are considered more generous than those for most private employees or federal or state workers.

Heck, who has an individual retirement account and is expecting a military pension after serving more than 20 years in the Army Reserve, tried to pull out of the House system and claim a refund of the $188 per month that had been deducted from his paycheck. He was turned away.

Rep. Richard Nugent. R-Fla., a House freshman elected with tea party support, also has a bill allowing lawmakers to withdraw from the pension system.

While unaware of others, Heck said there likely are a few other House freshmen who feel the same.

Before 2003, House lawmakers could opt out from the pension system.

A few including Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Howard Coble, R-N.C., have done so, according to Pete Sepp, executive vice president of the National Taxpayers Union.

A House government reform subcommittee held a hearing on federal pensions in January. Sepp took that to suggest there might be sentiment to make changes.

Sepp said some House candidates have said during campaigns that they wouldn't take a pension but then arrived in Congress to discover they don't have a choice. They are automatically enrolled.

Of those who want to decline a pension, "Most say either the system is too generous or the current federal deficit situation calls for some personal sacrifice," Sepp said.

Contact Stephens Washington Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault at [email protected] or 202-783-1760. Follow him on Twitter @STetreaultDC.
rfenst Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,459
They should get whatever pensions they expected going in, but going forward they should have pension bennefits similar to those the rest of us have available in the private sector. Still may need to be government managed to avoid piecemeal accounting and payments to different plans. whoever doesn't want it can return it to the government monthly) like my cousin does with his SS Benefit). just don't want a system where good politicians can't afford to serve, leaving the offices to the wealthy only.
wheelrite Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
rfenst wrote:
They should get whatever pensions they expected going in, but going forward they should have pension bennefits similar to those the rest of us have available in the private sector. Still may need to be government managed to avoid piecemeal accounting and payments to different plans. whoever doesn't want it can return it to the government monthly) like my cousin does with his SS Benefit). just don't want a system where good politicians can't afford to serve, leaving the offices to the wealthy only.


Politicians should get no pension,,,
It shouldn't be a career.
serve a term ot two then go back to private life,,,
DrMaddVibe Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,610
wheelrite wrote:
Politicians should get no pension,,,
It shouldn't be a career.
serve a term ot two then go back to private life,,,



You may pass "GO"!
ZRX1200 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,682
Word.
Stinkdyr Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
wheelrite wrote:
Politicians should get no pension,,,
It shouldn't be a career.
serve a term ot two then go back to private life,,,




ONE TERM AND DONE!!!!!


Re-elect NOBODY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


fog
Users browsing this topic
Guest