NC Supreme Court

NC Supreme Court candidates - seeking info

So, who knows things 'bout these people? Please to share your information.

THIS non-partisan RACE WILL BE ON THE JUNE 7 PRIMARY BALLOT (all parties)

+Michael “Mike” Rivers Morgan, D-Raleigh
https://ballotpedia.org/Michael_R._Morgan - looks good.
http://www.judgemichaelmorgan.com/election.html - 2012 site
judge in (one of?) the NC voter ID challenge(s)

Calling Bob Orr?

With filing now open for the North Carolina Supreme Court, I'm writing this public letter to ask Bob Orr to join the hunt. I know I've been critical of Bob over the years, especially once he sold out to Art Pope's Puppetshow. But in comparison to the pack of extremists filling the court these days, Mr. Orr seems to be an imminently sane alternative.

Open filing for Supreme Court seat March 16-25

Using the legal system to repair the legal system:

Sabra Faires, a Wake County attorney, filed a lawsuit last year asking the three-judge panel to toss out the law, arguing that moving from contested elections to up-or-down retention votes was a change that required a voter-approved amendment to the state constitution – something that did not happen.

Faires and two Wake County voters who joined her in the lawsuit faced off against the state Board of Elections in a hearing last month. The three-judge panel ruled in favor of the challengers. Faires said earlier this week that she plans to file as a candidate.

This could get ugly pretty quickly. If the GOP decides to pull the same kind of trick they tried with Robin Hudson, by stacking the Primary with Republican Justice candidates and banking on the non-partisan "you may choose two" effect, there could be two R's running against each other in November. In a perfect world, Sabra Faires would be facing Edmunds in the General. She's earned it. But if things get weird, having more Dems in the lineup may be the only way to secure that seat and flip the Court. And just to rectify some sloppy reporting:

NC Supreme Court: Sheriffs can fire employees for not "donating" to campaign

Welcome to the fifteenth Century:

The high court noted that county sheriffs hold an elected office established by the state Constitution, and they're recognized in state law as having sole authority over how their offices are run. Though they receive county funds, their offices are considered distinct from county government.

The court also rejected the deputies' arguments that their free-speech rights were violated, noting that "mutual confidence and loyalty between a sheriff and a deputy are crucial in accomplishing the sheriff's policies and duties" as an elected law enforcement official.

What the hell does money have to do with "mutual confidence and loyalty"? I don't care where you work, public or private sector, being fired for not contributing to a political campaign is just flat wrong. And for the NC Supreme Court to give this practice not just tacit approval, but supporting language as well, is off-the-charts crazy.

NC Supreme Court vacates Death Row commutations

"Your Honor, the dog ate my homework and I couldn't study for the test."

The state Supreme Court vacated rulings in four historic Racial Justice Act cases, saying the judge erred when he did not give prosecutors more time to respond to a statistical study about race in the North Carolina courts.

Under the short-lived Racial Justice Act, Weeks’ finding meant that the four death row inmates saw their sentences commuted to life in prison without a possibility for parole. Now the four will have to make their cases again.

They can "study" the statistics all they want, and it won't change the fact African-American jurors were removed at twice the rate as whites. Speaking of, the judge in question that was rebuked by the Supreme Court in this latest development is (wait for it) African-American himself, and prosecutors attempted to have him removed back in 2011 when these RJA cases were initially brought to court:

Chief Justice Martin's avoidance of the term "exclusively"

If parts of the Constitution don't fit your argument, just forget they exist:

Entitled "State school fund," Article IX, Section 6 provides:
The proceeds of all lands that have been or hereafter may be granted by the United States to this State, and not otherwise appropriated by this State or the United States; all moneys, stocks, bonds, and other property belonging to the State for purposes of public education; the net proceeds of all sales of the swamp lands belonging to the State; and all other grants, gifts, and devises that have been or hereafter may be made to the State, and not otherwise appropriated by the State or by the terms of the grant, gift, or devise, shall be paid into the State Treasury and, together with so much of the revenue of the State as may be set apart for that purpose, shall be faithfully appropriated and used exclusively for establishing and maintaining a uniform system of free public schools."

Bolding mine, in the hopes Mark Martin's attempt to erase the word won't stick. See if you can find that word in the numerous references he makes defending this decidedly un-constitutional siphoning off of public school resources:

GOP moves to delay Supreme Court review of redistricting

That's one way to preserve the supermajority you cleverly created:

The United States Supreme Court’s recent procedural action in these cases does not justify the schedule proposed by plaintiffs. While defendants agree that this Court’s further consideration of this case should proceed reasonably expeditiously, plaintiffs’ motion suggests a schedule that might apply if the United States Supreme Court had reversed this Court’s judgment on the merits and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion. The United States Supreme Court took no such action and the schedule on remand should reflect that reality. This Court should set a reasonable timetable for further
briefing and oral argument. In setting such a timetable, defendants request that this Court take into account scheduling conflicts that impact counsel for all the parties as more fully explained below.

Wait a minute, I thought this was just a totally-anticipated procedural issue, with no substantive impact on NC's redistricting law:

Vacated.

The US Supreme Court rejected the NC Supreme Court's ruling upholding the NC General Assembly's racially-motivated redistricting scheme, and sent the case back to the lower Court for a second look. This doesn't mean the redistricting itself has been rejected, but it is a step in that direction. Film at eleven. Actually, they don't allow filming in the Supreme Court, which is why we see those all those fancy sketches. And I doubt if we'll know more by eleven...*sigh* You know what I'm talking about.

Tipping the scales: NC's Judiciary shaped by out-of-state money

The final frontier of unchecked power:

But the mandatory retirement of Sarah Parker, the chief justice from 2006 until the end of August, opened up a spot on the bench. Gov. Pat McCrory appointed Associate Justice Mark Martin, a Republican, to fill the vacancy until the Nov. 4 elections. Robert N. Hunter Jr., a Republican who was on the N.C. Court of Appeals, was then named to serve in Martin’s seat until the election.

That shifted the balance in September to five Republicans and two Democrats. There have been few cases decided since then that reflect what that shift might mean for politically charged lawsuits.

There may have been only time for a "few" cases, but they've been instructive enough. The Supreme Court is gearing up to become much more involved in cases with a partisan nature, pre-empting the lower Court of Appeals when it will be advantageous to do so. That "pro-active" approach to the law does not bode well for those seeking Constitutional clarification or redress, nor does having justices owe allegiance to DC political heavyweights:

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - NC Supreme Court