Hang It Up, John

No, I’m not suggesting that he not run for reelection (this time), I’m arguing that he should give up his quixotic quest to protect yet another moth-eaten vestige of the Delaware Way.

In this case, the requirement that only D’s and R’s can be judges, and that there must be an equal distribution of D’s and R’s on the various state judicial benches.

Carney was handed yet another defeat in the courts in his efforts to protect the inbred nature of Delaware’s judicial appointments process.

Would it be churlish of me to point out just how intellectually dishonest Carney’s arguments on behalf of this ‘it’s ever been thus’ process are? No.  If Carney used that Ivy League (and perhaps concussed) brain of his, he would see just how illogical his position is.

News Journal reporter Karl Baker joins in the overheated rhetoric:

While its outcome may not set a legal precedent outside of Delaware, the implications of the case to businesses nationally are palpable because the state is the arbiter of most disputes between big American companies.

The implications aren’t palpable. Slow down your palpitations. The ruling was made in part because attorneys who are not members of either of the major political parties are currently ineligible to be considered for judgeships, meaning that presumably qualified candidates can’t even be considered. Yes, it’s true that the (registered independent) plaintiff in this case could have done what others do: register as a member of either the R’s or D’s precisely so that he could have been considered. Which brings up a dirty little political secret.  There are people sitting on the bench in Delaware today only because they changed their registration in order to become eligible for an opening. I know for a fact that at least two R judges are D’s who changed their registration when an R slot became open.

In other words, John, your argument is flawed. It has nothing to do with the sanctity of our Delaware Way-protected system. It’s already being blatantly manipulated.

There are also, obviously, other checks and balances to protect that alleged sanctity. As currently constituted, neither the executive nor the legislative branches are even contemplating messing with one of Delaware’s golden geese. The senate confirmation process provides another check. The hypothetical you raised in your legal argument is just that–hypothetical.  Maybe the Chamber convinced you that someday a more progressive legislature might reconsider Delaware’s fealty to corporatism.  Or maybe you can’t even think outside the lines. The judges ruled that you have no case and that, in fact, your Doomsday scenario is w/o merit:

In an opinion, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Pat Thynge found that political affiliation cannot be a consideration for judges even as “Mr. Carney paints a picture of doom and gloom, arguing that the court’s decision has ‘broad implications not just for Delaware, but for numerous other states.'”

In a subsequent denial of an appeal:

A three-judge panel in February ruled in favor in Adams, writing that the benefits of balance do not justify barring candidates who do not belong to either the Democratic or Republican parties.

“The governor fails to explain why this is the least restrictive means of achieving political balance,” the judges wrote.

This week, the entire court of appeals denied Carney’s request for a full hearing.

I beg you, John. Give it up. If not for us, then for the sake of budget-smoothing. After all, how many wasteful appeals can Delaware’s taxpayers afford?  Why not give some company a FOIA-exempted windfall instead?