Smith and cronies trying to legislate from the bench

It appears that Jim Smith is leading the charge on another crazy crusade to push our Supreme Court further along the activist path of which he’s been so fond of he became the chief justice.

From a Jackson Free Press article:

Several judges admitted that the court has been deliberating changes to its method for determining the positions of chief judge and presiding judges, even though the court has refused Jackson Free Press information requests detailing the deliberations.

We’ll save Smith’s proclivity for secrecy for another day. Right now, let’s focus on the fact that Smith and his fellow activist judges want to throw out 30 years of legislative statute because they don’t like who is coming up behind them.

“Six of the judges are under the control of big business. I’ve never been bought by anybody, and they’re scared to death that I’m going to rise up,” Easley said. “Smith is chief, and presiding judges are (WIlliam) Waller and (Oliver) Diaz. Polls show Smith losing and Diaz losing. The last poll I saw shows I’m winning, and if that happens I’m going to be in second place and a heartbeat away from being chief. They’re trying to maintain their control.”

The definition of an activist judge is one who makes laws instead of interpreting them. I can’t think of a better example than a court who takes it upon themselves to change the law that governs how their leader is chosen because they don’t like the next guy in line.

Miss. Code Ann. § 9-3-11 states that the chief justice will be the member of the court who has served for the longest time continuously; and, the two … judges of the supreme court who have served continuously for the next longest time shall be presiding justices.

There is nothing for the justices to interpret here, because there is no court case being decided. This is a bunch of judges who are scared because Smith’s political future doesn’t look to bright.

Help us get rid of Smith and this activist court. Click here to donate now. It doesn’t matter how small or large — OK, no more than $5,000 for individuals and $1,000 for corporations. Anything you can give will help.

Welcome to Music Mondays!

Many of you know that Kitch is a talented piano player. He loves Hank Williams and the blues.

What many of you may not know is that he recorded a CD at Sun Studios in Memphis, where the likes of Elvis Presley and Jerry Lee Lewis recorded their hits.

So from now until Election Day, we’re going to treat you to some great blues tracks recorded by Kitch.

Each Monday, we’ll give you two tracks. Then, on Nov. 3, we’ll provide all 20 tracks to you for download.

This is a great CD for any blues lover, so I hope you’ll enjoy it.

For today, here’s The Memphis Blues by W.C. Handy and Memphis, by an artist we can’t identify.

Enjoy the music.

Twitter

Do you tweet? Then come follow Kitch’s campaign on Twitter.

Visit Kitch’s Twitter page by clicking here.

Jim and Mary celebrate 40 years of marriage

Jim took some time off from campaigning over the weekend to celebrate his 40th anniversary with his wife, Mary.

The celebrated at a party thrown by their five children. It was held at the home of Kitch’s daughter and son-in-law, Warren and Rebecca Thornton of Crystal Springs.

Not even a torrential downfall could keep the more than 100 guests from coming to wish the happy couple their best. Unfortunately, Kitch’s sons spent most of their time outside in the rain parking cars. But that’s just a testament to the kind of kids Jim and Mary have raised.

If you want to see some photos from the event, check out this set over at Flickr.

Make sure you check out at least two photos, the one of the family and the one of the Jim and Mary.

Hampton gets a little cynical in column

David Hampton is a good writer, and I generally agree with most of his politics. But not today’s column. In fact, it sounded more cynical than I’ve heard David sound in quite a while.

That David supports appointing judges over electing them is no surprise. I’m still amazed at the people who think we can rid a system of politics by subjecting it to political appointment. It’s an argument that defies logic.

But I digress. What was really bothersome was David’s tone. For example, there was this diddy on candidates who claim not to look at their reports:

As always, follow the money - who gives it and who takes it. Ask the candidates and don’t take “I don’ t look at who gives me money” for an answer. If they say that, don’t believe it. If they truly don’t, that is worse.

Why is that worse? The candidates who truly do not look at their donors — and Kitch does not — are trying to remain above politics. What they are doing is admirable, and David should know that.

More to the point, David wants this race to be about trial lawyers vs. business interests. But this time, the peg ain’t fittin’ into that hole.

Kitch has trial lawyer money behind him, no doubt. But he’s got bankers, business owners and defense attorneys who have donated thousands of dollars as well. And don’t forget the nearly $25,000 we’ve raised to date in small donations from every day Mississippians.

Granted, Jim Smith’s financial backers are not nearly as diverse. He’s got one or two trial lawyers — like Don Evans. And he may have one or two individuals. But his donors are overwhelmingly big oil executives and political organizations.

One last note on David’s column. Here’s another bit of cynisism:

Ask candidates their positions if you wish. Judges shouldn’t discuss pending cases, but should tell you the basis of their beliefs. If they say, “Sorry I can’t ethically discuss that,” tell them “Sorry, I can’t ethically vote for you.”

Legally, they can discuss their ideas and philosophies.

David might like to think it’s that cut and dry, but it’s not.

For one, the Mississippi Code of Judicial Ethics preclude judges from speaking about issues on which they may one day rule. As far as it being legal, that statute has never been struck down in Mississippi. Similar statutes in other states have, and the Mississippi statute might one day follow suit. But as of now, it stands.

Past that, codes of ethics are often about more than being legal or illegal. It’s not illegal for a candidate to look at his list of donors. And one day it may not be illegal for them to speak on issues.

But ethically, they should not.

Look at judicial appointees during their confirmation hearings in the U.S. Senate. They speak about their philosophies, their qualifications and any written opinions they have made. But ask them about the death penalty, gun control or abortion, and they will not speak to those specific issues.

They can, mind you. But ethically, it would be wrong to do so.

But I’ll agree with David on one thing: Voters need to take an interest in judicial elections. Stark differences exist between Kitch and Smith.

Take a look at their records, and then make an educated decision about your vote.

On open ‘gummint’

When it comes to blogging, sometimes you just have to know when someone else says it better than you ever could.

Such is the case over at folo.us and this post about a JFP reporter’s interview.

Video of the Neshoba County Fair speech

We’ve posted the Neshoba County Fair speech online. It can be seen from at right or directly from YouTube.

Kitch did a great job, and we’ve had several calls and emails in response.

If you want to read the speech in its entirety, you can do so here.

I’d also encourage you to show your appreciation for Kitch and his message by making a small donation. To do so, click on the DONATE NOW button at the top right, or visit:

http://www.kitchensforjustice.com/donate/

Enjoy the speech!