PARENT'S RIGHTS NOW!

The Editorial can be accessed online at High court's unhappy decision.

The text of the Editorial is set forth hereinbelow.

____________________________________________________________________

Sunday, March 28, 2010

The state Supreme Court this week affirmed the S.C. Judicial Merit Selection Commission's right to disqualify Family Court Judge F.P. "Charlie" Segars-Andrews from continuing on the bench. But that doesn't mean the court was happy about it. For good reason.

Indeed, the court acknowledged the judicial election system provides "a chilling threat to judicial independence." Judges are expected to make tough and often unpopular decisions based on legal principle. Then they are held accountable by legislators who are apt to be more concerned with politics.

In South Carolina, judges are elected by the General Assembly, but only if they are approved by the JMSC, which consists mostly of lawmakers.

Sen. Glenn McConnell, who chaired the panel, applauded the Supreme Court ruling and predicted it will translate into higher standards for judges.

Unfortunately, those assessments often are made by legislators who presumably also are interested in keeping their political allies happy. And in any court case, it is rare that everyone leaves happy. In the case of Judge Segars-Andrews, the screening committee based its decision on a single instance when a litigant complained about her judicial ethics.

The General Assembly faces an unreasonable task in electing judges if the screening commission insists on approving only those who have not made a single mistake.

Ideally, the judicial arm of government is independent of the legislative arm. But in this case the JMSC discounted judicial independence when it disregarded the S.C. Court of Appeals and the state's judicial discipline commission, both of which found the judge's behavior acceptable.

Do judges ever deserve to be disqualified from re-election? Sure they do. But as the JMSC hears complaints about those seeking judgeships, it has a responsibility to hear all sides, and act judiciously. That wasn't the case with Judge Segars-Andrews.

Though the Supreme Court ruling leaves the judicial screening process intact, it should also have the effect of intensifying public scrutiny of the JMSC. South Carolina needs further assurance that the commission is serving its high-minded goals, as claimed.