I recently saw a letter to the Editor which calls for the removal of Kansas Supreme Court Justices who were reversed by the United States Supreme Court in the infamous Carr brothers cases.
The Kansas Supreme Court had reversed a District Judge who failed to give proper jury instructions. It left in place the conviction of the Carrs but ordered a new penalty phase hearing on the death penalty vs. life in prison issue so each Defendant would have a separate hearing on that issue.
It is important to remember that the Kansas Court did not “turn them loose”, nor did it say that the death penalty could not be imposed; just that it would have to be done in conformity with preexisting rules laid down by the Kansas Supreme Court. Under the Kansas Supreme Court decision, the Carr brothers would still have spent their entire lives in prison, without any chance of release. The United States Supreme Court, on appeal to it, reversed the Kansas decision, reinstating the result in District Court.
I know that the letter writer’s family was directly affected by the horrible crimes committed by the defendants in the Carr case and I cannot fathom how much it must hurt to have to think about that every day. This latest chapter in the case can do nothing to help those feelings. Were it not for the fact that I have learned that millions of dollars are being spent by outside forces to help Sam Brownback inappropriately control the judicial branch, my letter would not have been written. The issue is too important to allow it to be decided on emotion, though.
To fully understand the situation, it is helpful to recall an adage we all learned in law school: The Supreme Court is not final because it is infallible; it is infallible because it is final. Our system of justice in this country, while no doubt flawed, is also the best of any civilization yet known to Man. It is based upon the premise that this is a country governed by laws, not men (John Adams, 1780 Massachusetts State Constitution).
A reversal by the highest Court of the land is not a sign of unfitness for office. It is the way our system works and if the lower courts were perfect there would be no need for the Supreme Court of a State.
Very simply, the logic of the letter is faulty because its premise is faulty.
In the letter, the writer claims that the U.S. Supreme Court said that “a retention vote for the Kansas justices …would not come out favorably for them” and says that is paraphrased from the Scalia opinion. He closes by saying that the voters should “follow the advice of Justice Scalia” and not retain the Kansas Supreme Court Justices.
I suppose that if Justice Scalia or the Carr opinion said any such thing~ people could then follow the advice~ but, in fact, the opinion says no such thing.
I took the time to re-read the opinion when I saw the letter to the Editor and even used my computer to search the opinion for the words “retention”, “retain”, “keep”, “make their own law” or any of the words or phrases ascribed to Justice Scalia. They do not appear in the decision. In point of fact, Justice Scalia made absolutely no such comment as “paraphrased” in the letter from the former Judge. If there be any doubt as to what I say, here is the URL for the Carr decision. Search it yourself and read it carefully: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-449_9o7d.pdf.
While I may agree with the United States Supreme Court when it reverses a lower court, I know that reversal is not proof of some judicial misconduct. When I suffered reversal on a case decided by a local Judge, by the Kansas Supreme Court many years, I did not think the remedy was to recall the Supreme Court or not retain the Justices who voted to reverse that Judge. I knew that it was the job of the Kansas appellate court to scrutinize the decisions of District Judges and that if the Supreme Court did, in my opinion, err, it was infallible only because it was final. I also knew that it would be unfair if the local Judge’s next election opponent claimed that he should be booted out of office because he saw the law and facts a different way than the appellate court which reversed him.
There is a much bigger issue at stake this election year and it is whether Kansas will support the system of checks and balances among the three branches of government: The Courts, the Legislature and the Governor, or will be seduced by emotion to allow Governor Brownback to pack the Supreme Court of Kansas with judges who will allow him and his cohorts in the Legislature to run roughshod over the Kansas Constitution. The money funding the attempt to in effect destroy the Judicial System is from the Far Right extremists who have been trying to subvert the only thing that stands between them and total power in this State – the Courts.
In State after State, wealthy special interests have successfully removed enough Supreme Court Justices to in effect achieve reversal of decisions against them. West Virginia and Illinois are two examples of where that has happened. This is a replay of that game and victims of crime are being used as pawns in it. For the money people, this is about a power grab, not some kind of removal of Justices for misconduct.
In Kansas, there have been more than 50 attempts by the Legislature and Governor to change the way judges are appointed in Kansas and to alter the independence of the judiciary which looks out for the rights of all Kansans.
This most recent organized attempt, to allow a lame duck Governor, the most unpopular in the entire country, who has “experimented” Kansas into near bankruptcy, to attain control over the Kansas Supreme Court by creating five vacancies to be filled by him, with no accountability to the electorate for his actions, is using no-doubt frustrated and angry families of victims to achieve the court take-over.
If the voters want to eliminate one branch of government in Kansas, let them do it on the facts, not emotion. Don’t let the secret donations of the Far Right dictate a removal of judges who were doing their job, just as local District Judges were doing even when they were reversed on appeal.
Don’t vote against our Kansas Justices because of something that Justice Scalia never even said. Justice Scalia has now gone to his own judgment, having died on a hunting trip in Texas, and my best guess is that he was not judged by his Maker to be unfit to enter those gates because he was wrong in his opinions.
If you are going to turn to the Supreme Court of United States for advice on how to vote this election, read the dissenting opinion in the Carr case. In it, Justice Sotomayor, who disagreed with Scalia, said: “The standard adage teaches that hard cases make bad law. I fear that these cases suggest a corollary: Shocking cases make too much law.”
I urge you to resist this attempt to eliminate the system of checks and balances in Kansas. I respectfully request that you vote to retain Justices Nuss, Luckert, Biles and Beier. Vote to keep the balance of power in place. Vote Yes on November 8.
John T. Bird, Hays
Attorney At Law