VIDEO UPDATE: South Carolina Legislature Threatens Supreme Court Judge Don Beatty

Feb. 16, 2016 (Mimesis Law) — Schoolyard bullies get pissed when they don’t get their way. The classic bully pushes his victim around to see just how far he can take it. And when the victim gives in, it’s going to get worse and worse.

Some members of the South Carolina General Assembly (that’s what we call the state legislature here) have sent a not-so-subtle message to the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Apparently, if the Court doesn’t get in line with what the legislators want, those legislators intend to meddle with the Court until it starts behaving.

In South Carolina, the state legislature historically elects the most senior judge as the Chief Justice. This year, some legislators have made it clear that won’t be the case. Judge Don Beatty, an African-American supreme court justice, should be the next Chief Justice based on seniority. But some of his opinions have pissed off the legislature, so they intend to steal his lunch money.

What exactly did this justice do to anger the state lawmakers? The State newspaper interviewed some of the lawmakers who are rumbling about Justice Beatty. Those lawmakers relayed three decisions with which they are particularly concerned: an opinion that protected schoolchildren, an opinion that protected consumers, and a speech that criticized prosecutors who cheat.

Huh? Those are controversial opinions?

In each instance, Beatty followed the law. The only special interests he seemed concerned with were those of the people of South Carolina. But that can certainly cause trouble with a state legislature that rarely shows any concern about the people it claims to represent.

The first case that pissed off the legislature was a major lawsuit over South Carolina’s public school system. The South Carolina Constitution guarantees the right to a free public school system for the State’s children. Some of the schools have essentially been abandoned by the State. From infrastructure to the actual education, the schools in certain rural areas of South Carolina are called the “Corridor of Shame.”

The legislature took the position the Court could not force them to quit abandoning children. The Court said it could. And it did. Now the legislature is unhappy, likely because this whole education nonsense if going to take time away from political pandering.

Beatty also had the gall to protect South Carolina consumers from car dealers who were ripping them off. Those dealers were charging a “closing fee” that was simply an arbitrary amount tacked on to the price of a car; it wasn’t actually tied to any particular cost the dealer incurred. The car dealers lost a jury trial on the issue. Beatty authored an opinion upholding the jury’s decision.

Finally, Beatty really pissed people off a few years ago in a speech he gave to a prosecutor’s conference in South Carolina. By telling the prosecutors they need to make sure they follow the law, he really insulted the state’s establishment, apparently. What did he actually say?

At a state solicitors’ convention in Myrtle Beach, Beatty cautioned that prosecutors in the state have been “getting away with too much for too long.” He added, “The court will no longer overlook unethical conduct, such as witness tampering, selective and retaliatory prosecutions, perjury and suppression of evidence. You better follow the rules or we are coming after you and will make an example. The pendulum has been swinging in the wrong direction for too long and now it’s going in the other direction. Your bar licenses will be in jeopardy. We will take your license.”

As Radley Balko’s post discusses, prosecutors got mad. Let’s be clear here. By taking offense at what Justice Beatty said, these prosecutors are basically saying that they will, in fact, engage in misconduct and are entitled to a state appellate court that will remain unconcerned with that misconduct. Why else would they ask that Justice Beatty be recused from hearing all criminal cases? When the fox gets used to guarding the henhouse, he certainly doesn’t want to be called out for why that could be bad for the hens.

Courts and legislatures shouldn’t always agree. They should be at odds occasionally. The American system of government has checks and balances for a reason. But this is much more than government branches disagreeing on matters. This is an outright threat by one branch against another.

In case it’s not certain that South Carolina lawmakers are throwing a temper tantrum over opinions they don’t agree with, State Representative Rick Quinn made it clear that was exactly what was happening:

“It’s possible Beatty may have no opposition, but I just think it’s obvious that [Associate Supreme Court Justice John] Kittredge is running,” said Quinn, a former House majority leader, who said many lawmakers are displeased with some Beatty rulings such as ones on the Abbeville school district case. In those cases, the court, basically, ruled in 3-2 decisions that the state Constitution requires the General Assembly to upgrade needy rural schools. Beatty was with the majority; Kittredge was in the minority and wrote that the Supreme Court majority was acting as a “super Legislature.”

Oh. The loser in a case is upset with the outcome? That happens a lot. Except the loser usually doesn’t get to turn around and vote on the judge who decided the case. And by the way, just who exactly is going to improve state schools, if not the state legislature?

When the legal system becomes over politicized, it becomes ineffective. The concept of judicial independence means that the courts should not be beholden to the people, lawmakers, or anyone else. It’s the very ability to make an unpopular decision that makes the courts unique.

Being Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Carolina is largely ceremonial. It does not get an extra vote and the position doesn’t make the justice any more powerful than the other ones. But the tradition of elevating the senior judge to chief-status does take some of the politics out of the whole issue. There wasn’t any danger that a justice wouldn’t ascend to the spot if his or her decisions were not in line with the politics of the day.

But Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, said, “It’s been a tradition, but it’s a tradition of the Supreme Court. It’s not a tradition of the General Assembly.” Fair said many lawmakers, including himself, want justices who are “following the constitution, and we think the Supreme Court has wavered over time.”

Bullshit. Fair and the other South Carolina lawmakers don’t want justices who follow the constitution. They want justices who toe the General Assembly’s line. And based on the accomplishments of the state legislature, the last thing the people of South Carolina need is a judicial branch that does the Assembly’s bidding.

Main image via AP Photo/Richard Shiro

Share this: Reddit

Email

Print

Facebook

LinkedIn

Google

Twitter

