NEWS CLIPS

Blunt reveals activist side in judicial screening

We really ought to thank Gov. Matt Blunt for requiring the three Missouri Supreme Court finalists to fill out such extensive questionnaires for his consideration.

And thank him, too, for posting their answers online.

Blunt, who is on a tirade against judges in general and the judicial nominating process in particular, wants to make sure that everyone knows what judicial material he’s got to work with when he makes his selection.

It’s amazing what you can learn in leafing through the answers to 111 questions that Blunt or someone on his staff put together to challenge the three nominees, all state courts of appeals judges.

I thought maybe these questionnaires were harassment — or a sign that someone on the governor’s staff has an excessive-compulsive disorder. But having spent some time going through the answers, I can see that there’s a lot to be learned.

Things like nominee Nannette Baker once belonged to a skydiving association. Or that she is a former television news reporter (now that might be a strike against her).

Or that nominee Ronald Holliger dropped his membership in a men’s fraternal organization because at the time it did not admit female members.

Or that nominee Patricia Breckenridge had a run-in with the law when she once received a traffic summons in Cass County for driving with an expired vehicle registration. The charge was dismissed later.

This is the kind of stuff you ought to know about your next Supreme Court judge, by golly.

We can learn by reading the questionnaires that all three judges have worked for an employer who hired, or provided services to, illegal immigrants. Now there’s cause to worry.

Turns out, though, that the employer is the state of Missouri, for whom they now work.

(Blunt earlier this year canceled a state contract with a janitorial service that allegedly had hired illegal immigrants.)

By law, the Appellate Judicial Commission nominates three people to Blunt for appointment to a Supreme Court opening, and he must choose from the three or the commission will make the appointment. The commission went through its own interviews and questionnaires, but Blunt has been unhappy with the commission’s process, calling it incomplete and not transparent.

The governor hasn’t been very complimentary of judges in general. Mostly when he talks about them, he uses the adjective “activist” with such a snarl that you can quickly get to the bottom of his unhappiness.

He signaled that he would not knowingly pick any such activist judge for this Supreme Court slot. Thus the nominees get an extensive questionnaire from Blunt designed to ferret out activism.

The commission just asked 25 questions — boilerplate stuff like where did you go to college and law school, what’s your background as a lawyer, and have you ever been disciplined for a breach of ethics? Historically, judicial appellate commissions have thought that was all they needed to know.

However, given that this is Blunt’s first appointment to the Supreme Court, who can blame him for being careful? Can’t let any activists slip in here.

To help ferret out activism, the governor thinks he needs to know: Are you divorced? Have you ever been party to a lawsuit? What clubs have you belonged to? What religious groups have you been affiliated with?

I suppose some court watchers would think that volunteering for charities, for instance, is a sign of activism. Maybe community service won’t be such a good deal for these nominees.

When the candidates didn’t answer a question or answered one incompletely, the governor’s staff further queried them in telephone interviews. Apparently, Blunt really wants to know this stuff.

You can find the questionnaires, the answers and the telephone interview questions online at http://gov. missouri.gov/MOSupreme CourtCandidateReview.htm.

If you have trouble falling asleep at night, I’d suggest them for help.

Full Article