TKC EXCLUSIVE!!! A COALITION OF KANSAS CITY AREA AFRICAN-AMERICAN LEADERS SOON TO OPPOSE THE MISSOURI PLAN!!!
Right now, there is an effort underway to put forth a different perspective on The Missouri Plan -- A bad compromise that has heretofore been (mis)represented as an effort to keep the state's Judiciary from being overly politicized.
A CONTINGENT OF KANSAS CITY AREA AFRICAN-AMERICAN LEADERS PLAN ON CHALLENGING THE MISSOURI PLAN GIVEN THE LEGACY OF OF JUDICIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THIS STATE!!!
The names should be familiar to denizens of local politics.
Behind the scenes, there has already been talk of the involvement of the following folks in providing some Missouri Plan pushback . . .
Jackson County Legislator James D. Tindall
City Council Candidate Michael Fletcher
City Council Dude Terry Riley (???)
And some of the most influential African-American Ministers
Additionally, after next week expect some politicos at The State Level to voice their concern as well.
There are numerous complaints against The Missouri Plan but more than anything else it's clear there is little emphasis on diversity in the way judges have been selected. The world's most accurate encyclopedia notes, "Former Missouri State legislator and lawyer, Elbert Walton, has focused on the plan's effect on African Americans. "It is unfair that lawyers elect judges . . . It disenfranchises people and it especially disenfranchises black people." At a press conference in February, 2008, Walton accused Missouri Bar President Charlie Harris, an African-American, of ignoring the Missouri Plan's effect on black people. Walton pointed to the fact that there had never been an African American elected to one of the Missouri Bar's three slots on the Appellate Judicial Commission, though many have been appointed judges, and suggested that Mr. Harris "ought to be ashamed of himself" for supporting such a plan."
Furthermore, I heard a great analogy on the subject recently:
Imagine that someone said that the Mayor and City Council people would be appointed behind closed doors because politics was too intense in this part of the State. What would happen, what would be the response? A similar and nearly private, mostly unrepresentative system applied to judges should be greeted with the same kind of skepticism.
In the end . . . WHAT'S SO SCARY ABOUT DEMOCRACY?!?!?!?
So far, the scare tactic has been that elections would make the process too corporate and would put people of color even further out of the running for a shot at real representation. This response is not only condescending but also . . . It's just plain wrong.
I've heard that when it comes to representation for African-Americans among this closed sect of Missouri legal denizens -- things simply can't get any worse . . .
And as this move against The Missouri Plan gets closer I hope to do a bit more followup and offer a few more arguments against legal decisions made behind closed doors.
Developing . . .
It's about that time.
ReplyDeleteIt might make a difference if 20% of black college freshmen didn't require remedial courses to get them through Law school.But they can always complain, can't they?
ReplyDeleteSounds like Michael Fletcher ass devised a plan to get baack at the judges who kicked his ass out of the bar. Every black leader that signs on will be on his payroll.
ReplyDeleteReally? We are supposed to be influenced by three of the biggest scumbags in Kansas City?
ReplyDeleteTindall? ... Fletcher? ... Riley?
Really? REALLY?
Ass-wipes one and all!
sounds like the white guys are already upset that African Americans are standing up for ourselves...what minority could be against electing judges?
ReplyDelete7:55 are you saying white judges are qualified? If they are they should have no problem being elected?
ReplyDeleteif we elect our city council, congressman, senator, governor and president, why should a judge be any different?
ReplyDeleteThe judiciary is not a representative branch of government. It is not supposed to be, either. Therefore, I don't expect to vote for its members.
ReplyDeleteLook at Texas and ask yourself if you really want to elect judges.
Well nobody seems happy with our elected leaders from DC downward, because they've been bought off by corporate interests through huge campaign donations.
ReplyDeleteSo our top judges are appointed but I think they should have to be REAPPOINTED after every election of governor.
Why? Because it's clear that the Mo Supreme Court, in part because chief Judge Ray Price has a prosecutor's background, isn't impartial.
They have a tendency to ignore the Mo Constitution's Bill of Rights; they spend too much time advising lawmen how to work around the Constitution and they do not follow the model of the US supreme court of separation of duties and impartiality.
That's trying to legislate a police state from the bench. If Price wants to be in charge of the justice system, he needs to run for Attorney General and be the top prosecutor.
The 'Missouri Plan' does nothing to get activist judges off the court. Just puts CORPORATE PAID activist judges on the court, like in West Virgina where the coal companies got favorable judges on THEIR court so they don't have to be fair to their slave mine workers.
Vote NO for the corporate interests, but send the current court back to tenth grade civics class.
Well, I would certainly scrap the Missouri Plan on your say-so, TKC. You sub-idiot!
ReplyDelete2 of the 5 members (40%)of the judicial selection committee are African American, including the local head of the NAACP.
ReplyDelete9:45 and how many black supreme court judges are there?
ReplyDeleteWhen you have a case, do you really want to appear in front of a judge who has been bought off by some large donor? Why would coporations really want to donate millions to elect partisan judges? Godd government? Does a Republican really want to appear in front of a Democratic judge? How about vice verse? No, when we need our day in court we all want our umpires to be fair and impartial.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Supreme Court is reviewing legislation, do you really just want another partisan hack - no (p.s., Ray Price did not have a prosecutor's background). You don't want a Democratic hack reviewing Democratic legislation or vice versa.
The fact is that 2 Republican donors have contributed millions to attack the Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan. Ask yourself is that democracy? If 37 states have copied some or all of our plan, is it really that bad of an idea?
Is it perfect, no. That is because the system requires humans. Do we need more minorities on the bench, yes. Should Fletcher, a disbarred lawyer running for City Council be the flag bearer for taking apart the Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan, . . .
Actually people vote to retain judges and they vote in the governor. But most importantly don't enough black people vote to make a difference. I read in the Call where only 8 percent of the black vote turned out. So, we would then be having this same conversation about all whites selecting judges. Naw I will pass and besides who wold follow any of the three people mentioned who all have a axe to grind with the system.
ReplyDeleteOk 9:56... I cannot now explain how I said he had a prosecutor background, since a check this morning does not show that. Sorry for the factual error. He was mostly on the Police Commission and belongs go some pro law enforcement organizations. Just don't know where I got that.
ReplyDeleteEven so, I'm uncomfortable that he's an advocate for ANYTHING other than the Constitution. I don't see that as the role of the judiciary. Moreover, where to put criminals or what's a crime is completely the perview of the LEGISLATURE, not the JUDICIARY.
10:26 -- are you Fletcher? Only Fletcher has made this allegation about Justice White.
ReplyDeleteBy the way -- Fletcher had multiple hearings. He just didn't like the outcomes.
10:53 I am not but I am a lawyer who has watched this debacle for years and the "allegation" is in multiple pleadings soooo...AND if you read the pleadings Fletcher has NEVER had a hearing in Missouri so you are just lying. What else is in the is pleadings is that Fletcher has Ronnie White on tape making the statement...so we shall see who is telling the truth and who is not.
ReplyDeletewhy is it when anybody defends Fletcher, you haters make up some fact. If you are so right about Fletcher these judges should WANT TO RUN IN AN ELECTION.
ReplyDeleteIf the Missouri Supreme Court did not decide to "fuck" fletcher, than why won't they give him a hearing?
ReplyDelete11:10 they won't give him a hearing because they hate him!
ReplyDelete1. The federal district court gave him a hearing.
ReplyDelete2. The federal court of appeals gave him a hearing.
3. The Missouri Supreme Court gave him a hearing; that court (as is almost always the case) chose not to rehear the evidence but adopted the disciplinary decision of the federal courts. That is a hearing -- it may not be the hearing you/Fletcher wanted, but that is the norm.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with whether judges should run for election on partisan tickets, make campaign promises, and recieve campaign contributions. That is a bad idea in its own right.
Can someone post a short summary of this Fletcher case?
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/042636P.pdf
The white judges and white lawyers want you to believe what THEY say, but the TRUTH is that Fletcher has never had a hearing by the Missouri Supreme Court, period...the truth is the truth. but we should let the people decide who is telling the truth by VOTING.
ReplyDelete11:13 you are just lying. The MoSptCrt has NEVER given Fletcher a hearing and every attorney is entitled to a hearing.
ReplyDeleteI didn't move here until three years ago so I don't know anything about fletcher, but I do know what the law says about a discplinary action because i have represented lawyers in them.
ReplyDeleteMissouri law mandates that an attorney who has been "reciproally disciplined" "shall have a hearing." If the guy did not get one and he asked then the law was not applied equally.
http://www.wvablue.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1554
ReplyDeleteask the miners in West Virginia how having an elected supreme court helps them...
how about 10 million dollar elections in Ohio and Michigan....
Bad idea...once again Riley is for sale to the highest bidder
12:38 OR is it the missouri supreme court is on sale to MATA and the trial lawyers. Anybody who is against these judges are "corrupt" or "for sale" because they won't agree with a status quo that exclude black people or protects small business from huge law suits by plaintiff's lawyers.
ReplyDeleteso if we don't vote to let judges be selected by plaintiffs lawyers, miners in west virginia will die. You plaintiff lawyers are pathetic. It is called democracy and the plaintiff's lawyers are afraid of it--that makes me for it.
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Plan = judges for life.
ReplyDeleteIf Tindall, Riley and Fletcher are so corrupt, than what is everybody so worried about, obviously voters wouldn't listen to them?
ReplyDeleteBlack people make up 12% of the US population. How many should you see represented above 12%?
ReplyDeleteI supported election of judges back when they had rules they couldn't advertise. Well now theyll be sold out to big money... that wont' be democratic money.
ReplyDeleteThat will be corporate business money contributing to judicial and governor's campaigns.
The country's already been sold out. No turning it back until the US supreme court decides that the only people who have free speech are PEOPLE, not CORPORATIONS.
Until then, this is not a democracy. Im going to vote against this 'missouri plan'.