Lembke's Latest Attack on Neutral Judiciary Fails!

Rep. Lembke attacks the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan and neutral judges at every corner. It is good to see some of his attacks rejected by even his fellow Republicans.

Frequent readers will recall that Rep. Lembke (who is running for state senate) sought to have a judge impeached because he did not like her ruling. Rep. Lembke started writing the judge and using his influence as a state legislator to help a friend. When we tried to get the documents, the Republicans would not release them in response to a Sunshine request.

Well, Speaker Rod Jetton has shut down the impeachment effort. Even Republicans think Rep. Lembke is nuts!

From the Lake Sun Newspaper:

An attempt by a state representative from the St. Louis area to have Associate Circuit Judge Christine Hutson investigated for possible impeachment failed. . . Lembke said the Nolands approached him after hearing him speak at a meeting last year. Lembke is one of several Missouri legislators pushing for more control over judges. Lembke attempted to use the case as an example of why judges need more oversight. The issue, he said at the time, was the decisions made by the judge. In particular, Lembke disagreed with the custody settlement.

From Rep. John Burnett:

Rep Jim Lembke (R-St Louis) dealt major setback in impeachment effort

Lembke has been one of the loudest and most outspoken critics of lawyers and the Judiciary in the past few years in the House. And in that atmosphere to be one of the louder critics of judges requires some lung strength. He had recently requested impeachment proceedings be started against a Laclede County Judge because of what he felt were mistakes in a divorce case. Speaker Rod Jetton denied the request to begin impeachment proceedings. Remains to be seen what his next move will be on that case. Lembke's Resolutions attacking judges and the Missouri Court Plan to choose judges remain alive and well and lurking in the wings awaiting further action any day now.

When you hear about the far right wing Republican attacks on the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan, know that this is what they want. Rep. Lembke wants to be able to influence judge's individual decisions. Let's hope that the voters in St. Louis don't put him in the Senate. Fired Up Missouri reports that Lembke's race for the 1st Senate District is facing problems because he is not cozy enough with Missouri Right to Life.

I am supporting Former State Representative Joan Barry in her race against Lembke for the 1st Missouri Senate seat. Please contribute to her campaign, we don't need to see Lembke in the senate where he can do even more harm

Missouri’s judiciary is under attack, AGAIN

From an editorial by Skip Walther in the Columbia Tribune about unfair attacks on the judiciary by SOME Republicans:


I remember the agony of studying into the early-morning hours for that all-important civics exam in seventh grade. How many members in the House of Representatives? Who succeeds to the presidency if the president and vice president suddenly die? Which branch of government must overturn an unconstitutional law? Remember the answer to that question? It’s OK if you don’t; neither does the governor of Missouri.

Unfair, you say. OK, let’s see. Go back to 1820. That is the first year when our soon-to-be state adopted its first constitution. In that year, in that constitution, is found the idea that no law retrospective in its operation can be passed. Our state cannot pass a law that creates a disability for past actions. That makes sense, doesn’t it? It has made sense since 1820, which is the year before Missouri became a state. That has been the law without interruption.

Fast-forward to Feb. 19, 2008. The Missouri Supreme Court published an opinion on a law deemed to be retrospective. The law relates to sex offenders, who are not a popular group in any setting. In 2006, the Missouri General Assembly passed and our governor signed a law that prohibited sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school. Unfortunately, the law applied to anyone who, since 1979, moved to a house after the school was built. In other words, even sex offenders with the same residence address for two decades must move if that address is close to a school. Failure to move is a felony. Our Supreme Court said the law violates the state constitutional provision in effect since 1820 that prohibits retrospective laws. In so deciding, our Supreme Court took a path that it must take, which is to say it followed the rule of law, regardless of the political consequences and regardless of public opinion. Our society demands nothing less.

Gov. Matt Blunt wasted no time in denouncing the Supreme Court. Mere hours after the opinion was published, our governor decried the "outrage that our state’s highest court has ruled in favor of sex offenders." I can honestly say I do not think I have ever read a more ignorant statement from an elected official, ever. Our Supreme Court did the job it has done since statehood, which is to elevate the constitution above any law passed by the legislature.

Those who paid attention in junior high civics remember the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided legislative enactments that violate the U.S. Constitution must be struck down by the judiciary. This is not rocket science. It is called separation of powers. The people adopt the Constitution. The legislature passes laws, and the executive enforces the laws. If a law violates the Constitution, the judiciary strikes down the law. So the answer to the seventh-grade civics exam question is: The judiciary is the branch of government that overturns unconstitutional laws.

In striking down the sex offender law, our Supreme Court gave life to the Missouri Constitution, which the citizens of this great state adopted long ago. Attacking the judiciary on this elementary example of constitutional law is a political ploy that Gov. Blunt is using once again in an attempt to re-energize a disinterested political base. He wants our judges to be subservient to politics instead of the law.

Unfortunately, this attempt is one of many. At this moment, members of the Missouri General Assembly are trying to close the courthouse doors to our citizens (HJR 41); attempts are under way to politicize the judiciary (HJR 49 and 52); and to give the legislature control over the courts and disrupt the flow of serious and intelligent lawyers seeking a judicial position (HJR 66 and SB 968). The legislators who are trying to pass these laws do not seem to understand the role judges play in the separation-of-powers scheme that has made our country the greatest on Earth.

This is not a minor event, nor is this an insignificant problem. Ignorance of the separation-of-powers concept is creating needless tension among the branches of government. This tension has led to the introduction of a number of bills that threaten the integrity of our courts. Until we, as citizens, tell the legislature to learn that its job is to pass laws that are consistent with the constitution and to respect the co-equal role the judiciary plays in our system of government, the agony of studying for a test will pale compared to the pain all of us will experience when our courts become dominated by politics.

Why Hide the Documents?

Rep. Lembke is the lead attacker of the Missouri Plan. He says he wants more openness in government.

So, Rep. Lembke files a resolution with House Speaker Rod Jetton to have Judge Hutson impeached. I think I should be able to get a copy of the document. Wrong!!! Why are they hiding?

The Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan is about reducing politics in the judiciary branch. Rep. Lembke is about increasing politics, including telling judges when they should recuse themselves. This guy is scary.

KC Star Says Keep Politics out of Judiciary

Some on the very far right wing of the Republican Party have decided attacking judges, turning neutral arbitrators into partisan hacks, is good politics. It may be good Republican politics to pander to your base under the Karl Rove/Jeff Roe theory, but it is not good government.

Here's the the KC Star Editorial from February 7, 2008:

Some Missouri lawmakers persist in trying to inject politics into the selection of judges, a truly bad idea that could lead to buying and selling of justice. The latest assault on the judiciary in Jefferson City involves constitutional amendments that could seriously damage the state’s much- copied system of keeping politics at arm’s length from the judiciary. A nonpartisan panel of lawyers, representatives of the public and a judge screen candidates for a judgeship in the state’s largest cities and at the appellate level. Three names are sent to the governor, who makes the final choice.

It’s a good system.

Rep. Jim Lembke, a St. Louis Republican, wants a panel of Democrats and Republicans to make the nominations. He also wants senators to approve the governor’s selection. Those changes would allow politicians to essentially pick judges. Rep. Stanley Cox, another Republican from Sedalia, wants the governor to have a greater say in choosing the nominees. That could result in only candidates who are political associates of the governor — and possibly campaign contributors — making it to the bench.

Chief Justice Laura Denvir Stith this week pointed out to legislators that the non-partisan system is in place because largely Republican lawmakers and civic leaders once led a voter initiative. It’s puzzling that GOP lawmakers — backed by Republican Gov. Matt Blunt — now want to depart from that historical achievement.

They apparently haven’t thought very far ahead. They may well regret their efforts if the next governor is a Democrat. Missouri’s system has served the state well since 1940 and there were no complaints about the overall quality of judges until Blunt and current legislative critics of the system got into office.

The nonpartisan system isn’t what is off-base here. These ideas for politicizing the judiciary should be rejected.

The far right wing of the Republican Party love to talk about "strict constructionist judges," which is code word for reversing Roe v. Wade. The Republicans talking about this are not the business types who want even, fair & consistent rulings on contract cases. It's not the fiscal conservatives who just want Bush to stop running up trillion dollar deficits. It's only those folks who understand that if they can stop courts from enforcing our civil rights, then they can eliminate the right to choose.

Right wing folks fear McCain because he formed the Gang of 14 to work through Bush's efforts to appoint extremely conservative judges. Pat Buchanan, writing in the American Conservative, in an article entitled The Great Betrayal, is at least honest about it - Buchanan says that he wants the next Republican president to appoint someone to overturn Roe v. Wade.

In 1993, McCain voted to confirm the pro-abortion liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But when Bush set out to restore constitutionalism, McCain formed the Gang of 14, seven senators from each party. All agreed to vote to block the GOP Senate from invoking the “nuclear option”—i.e., empowering the GOP to break a filibuster of judicial nominees by majority vote—unless the seven Democrats agreed.

With this record of voting for Clinton justices and joining with Democrats anxious to kill the most conservative Bush’s nominees, what guarantee is there a President McCain would nominate and fight for the fifth jurist who would vote to overturn Roe v Wade?

Democrats don't talk about the need to pack courts with political hacks. We don't ask judges to pre-judge or pre-commit to their rulings on important civil rights issues. It looks like the Republican Party has lost control of their far right wing again.

Why We Need the Missouri Plan: Rep. Lembke thrusts politics into custody case

You might recall that Rep. Jim Lembke (R - St. Louis) has managed to stir things up by advocating for changes in the Missouri Non-partisan court plan while at the same time pushing to inject politics into the neutral judicial branch. Lembke decided to write a letter to Judge Christine Hutson, telling her to recuse herself from a Lebanon, Missouri custody case. Rep. Lembke then filed documents to have Judge Hutson impeached.

Why would a St. Louis state representative stick his nose into rural custody case? Politics, plan and simple. Things just don't look good when even the Republicans are pointing out the ethical problems with Rep. Lembke's actions. As the Lebanon Daily Record notes "Lebanon’s representative in the statehouse, Republican Darrell Pollock, denounces as highly inappropriate the actions of a St. Louis lawmaker who is injecting himself into a Camden County divorce case." A guardian was appointed to represent the kids' best interests, that person called Rep. Lembke's tactics "very heavy handed." The local paper asked Rep. Pollock (R - Lebanon) why Rep. Lembke got involved on the side of the losing parent, Claire Noland Vance;

When asked why Lembke wanted Hutson to recuse herself, Pollock said Lembke mentioned that Hutson had been a past supporter of Congressman Ike Skelton, D-4th District, whose political opponent has been Jim Noland, father of Claire Noland Vance.

So, all we have is nasty, old politics finding its way into a courtroom. That is exactly why we have the Missouri NON-PARTISAN Court Plan. Rep. Lembke wants to get rid of the system because he can't use his political muscle to help out his friends in the courtroom.

You have to tip your hat to Judge Hutson for standing up to political pressure. You also have to be impressed with Rep. Pollock for standing up to his fellow Republican. Here is Rep. Pollack's letter to Rep. Lembke:

December 14, 2007

The Honorable Jim Lembke
House of Representatives
State Capitol
Jefferson City, MO 65101

Dear Rep. Lembke:

I am writing you this letter to continue the initiation of conversation that I began on Thursday, December 13, 2007, three days after your filing of a letter asking that Judge Christine Hutson recuse herself from a case that is presently before her, and your plan to file a House Resolution directed toward Judge Hutson seeking constitutional grounds for impeachment.

I reiterate our phone conversation that Judge Christine Hutson is an honorable person. She is held in the highest regard in the community, which she serves. Judge Hutson is a person of integrity and I have seen this demonstrated personally when I visit her courtroom. I have also shared with her that I appreciate her demeanor and decorum in the manner she runs the cases before her. Judge Christine Hutson is not of the same party affiliation as I am, but nonetheless a true servant of those that have chosen her to serve in this capacity.

The court case that we are discussing is currently before the Southern District Court of Appeals and they have returned a portion of the case back to Judge Hutson for further review. This is my understanding. You have asked in your letter that Judge Hutson recuse herself from this case. Jim, I have to ask, have you considered that what you are asking may have the appearance of being unethical on your part? What are your intentions in this case? I also ask what role do you believe the Missouri House of Representatives has in this particular case? These are important questions that deserve answers. It is my understanding, this case has not gone through the process of being brought before the Commission on Discipline that our courts have in place to deal with allegations such as these. There are measures in place to deal with this and to my knowledge they have not been requested. Jim, you had mentioned to me that your reason for this impeachment is that you believe there has been an act of oppression from the bench. I have to ask, is it that Judge Hutson gave full custody to the father and you believe that the father is unable to handle this? That I do not understand. Even the attorney representing the children’s best interests in this case sided with Judge Hutson that the choice should be made to give the father custody. This does not constitute impression. This decision came about from much deliberation and discernment. For us to take an outside look for only a few minutes at such an in-depth and difficult situation and determine that Judge Hutson used her bench for acts of oppression is beyond my imagination. Jim, I am asking that you withdraw your House Resolution (#3683L.011) immediately and that you recuse yourself from further activity in this case; allow justice to be done at the discretion of those experienced and have the ability to determine fairness, which are the judges that this case is before.

I have worked with you shoulder to shoulder on many issues and find that you are a true representative of the people you serve. I respect you and many of the stances you take. I am asking that you return the same courtesy to me and know that I too represent the people fairly and honorably. I disagree with your involvement in this issue and look forward to this being resolved expeditiously.

Sincerely,

Darrell Pollock
District 146

Rep. Lempke responded, according to the Lebanon Daily Record:

Lembke replied to Pollock on Jan. 4, saying he had studied the court documents and sought legal opinions from “numerous attorneys and advice from state agency personnel.”

“The parties involved are not friends, relatives, or associates of mine or anyone I know, nor are they political supporters or even opponents. If you are implying that questioning the ethics of a member of the judiciary would be itself unethical, I feel that it is our right as citizens and, as representatives, our constitutional duty to challenge abuses of power,” Lembke’s reply says.

“How do we know that the persons sitting in judgment on the bench are the most experienced, qualified, and knowledgeable if, on occasion when brought before us, we do not exercise our constitutional check?” Lembke added.

I'm still trying to get a copy of the resolution (Jetton's office won't give it up) and will continue to try to get copies of the relevant letters. If you want to know why we need less politics in the judiciary, not more, all you have to do is look at this debacle.

Why we need less politics in the judiciary

St. Louis Republican State Representative Jim Lembke is the lead opponent of the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan. He filed HJR 51 to eliminate from our state Constitution the Commission of Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges. Rep. Lembke sponsored HJR 52 to change the state Constitution to get rid of the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan.

Rep. Lembke loves inserting politics into the neutral judiciary so much even his Republican colleges think he has an ethics problem. The January 7, 2008 edition of Missouri Lawyers Weekly includes an article about Lembke attempting to impeach Judge Christine Hutson, associate circuit judge in Laclede County. According to the article, "Lembke filed a resolution in early December with Speaker Rod Jetton's office calling for a special House committee to investigate allegations [that Judge Hutson] committed certain acts and omissions that would be grounds for impeachment." Lembke sent Judge Hutson a letter saying this was in relation to a child custody case and took the highly unusual act of telling Judge Hutson to recuse herself. You guessed it, Judge Hutson is a Democrat and out-state judges have to run in partisan races. Can you say separation of powers?

Rep. Darrell Pollock - the Republican representative from Laclede County - asked Lempke to withdraw the resolution "in a Dec. 14 letter that questioned whether Lembke's actions might themselves appear unethical and asking Lembke to recuse himself from further activity in the case." Rep. Pollock's letter asked "What are your intentions in this case? I also ask what role do you believe the Missouri House of Representative has in this particular case?" I'll answer that question - Rep. Lembke thanks judges should be bullied around like he was the King of England. Politics over justice. Pollock went on to say "I feel its not our responsibility to look over a judge's shoulder every two or three minutes and make a claim they're using their bench for oppression." Republican Representative Pollock is right, we don't want that. Friends of the politically powerful should not get one version of justice and everyone else gets screwed. That is un-American.

Lembke wouldn't say who brought the divorce case to his attention. The case is Claire Noland v. Brent Vance and involves custody of the kids. Messy, messy, messy. Vance's lawyer, Ed Clausen, said he didn't ask Lembke to get involved and that Lembke was "doing the bidding" of an unhappy party. Noland's father, Jim Nolan, was a Republican state legislator who ran unsuccessfully for Congress.

This is the kind of nastiness that is caused by confusing politics with the rule of law. This is the docket entry resulting from Lembke's letter in case #26V010500459.

Case called. Petitioner appears by her Atty Thompson. Respondent appears by his Atty Clausen. GAL C. Allen appears. Court files letter to attorneys regarding letter received on December 12, 2007, from Representative James Lembke. Court allows all attorneys to address issue of recusal. Based upon the facts and case law, this Judge does not find that recusal is needed or warranted. Therefore, the Court does not intend to recuse and will proceed. However, both parties are offered an opportunity for a continuance to take this issue up with the Appellate Courts. Atty Thompson states that he needs opportunity to confer with his client. Hearing on all pending motions and any motions filed after this date is continued to January 23, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. Court orders both Petitioner and Respondent to appear personally with attorneys. Clerk to send notice of entry to parties. CH/js

Who wants a judiciary that gets micro-managed, told what to do and bossed around by politicians? Rep. Lembke does. No thanks, I'll take a judiciary that is fair and impartial, one that does not have to be subject to the whims of the crown, one that ensures the rule of law is enforced. I'll take the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan.