web analytics
Connect with us



The SC legislators have responded to the suggestions related to judicial reform.  That’s a wonderful thing, especially because there is little transparency, responsibility, accountability, and/or consequences of their accommodating choices.  The judges benefit when they bow to the legislators/lawyers “suggestions” and they are passed over when they act according to the law.

If you think that a huge overhaul will happen without public insistence, it’ll be a long night!   Below are the 3 “attitude questions” placed on the ballots on February 24, 2024.

Question 1: “Should South Carolina law be changed to give people the right to register to vote with the political party of their choice?”
Republicans supported the measure by a 73 percent to 27 percent margin.

Question 2: “Should South Carolina adopt reforms to increase the independence and accountability of our judiciary by improving transparency and reducing conflicts of interest in the process of reviewing judicial qualifications and electing judges?”
The question addresses the fact the 170 members of the General Assembly directly elect state judges — something critics say gives lawyer-legislators too much influence to choose which judges they see in court.
Advocates of the current process say there is little evidence of any misconduct and that other methods have their own downsides.
The question finished with a 91 percent to 9 percent approval margin.

Question 3: “Should it be an immediate legislative priority to protect South Carolina’s competitiveness and small businesses by changing state law so that a person’s responsibility for financial damages in a lawsuit is based on that person’s actual share of responsibility?”
The question polled voters’ interest in changing how compensation in liability lawsuits is determined.
The issue was supported by an 88 percent to 12 percent margin.

Question #2 deals with the judicial process, as written from within the system, relating to the 170 members.  Of course, their number one priority is self, regardless of what has been said or signed.  This is where the public has an opportunity to put more bite into this reform.  They have written this little blurb to only state the obvious, without any suggestions as to how to fix this. How about we try something like this:

In Question #3, even though it is related to something entirely different, why not apply parts of it to the judicial reform issue?  Such as this scenario:

The appointed judge is facing a defendant’s attorney who was part of selecting him for his seat on the bench.  This judge knows the lawyer/member is his meal ticket, so therefore the defendant receives a lenient sentence (if at all).  The defendant returns to the street without serving a sentence or is let out of jail/prison due to whatever the attorney and judge cooked up.  The defendant commits another crime and because of that, the injured party has little recourse, as the way things are presently.

This is where more teeth are applied to this reform.  If/when this happens, not only should the defendant be sent to prison and their sentence doubled, but the judge and the legislator should be fined and suspended, and share liability for their part in this fiasco.  What was it they called it?  Shared responsibility?

Of course, these people have no intention of policing themselves or passing a bill or law that would keep them honest.  Look at what they have done to the Constitutional Carry bill.  It’s filled with what they are allowed to do, along with the things we aren’t allowed to do.

Hand-picked judges go before the hand that picked them, setting up a hand-picked schedule and a hand-picked defendant, resulting in a hand-picked outcome.

And we’re supposed to trust them?  I think not.