Support NeoGAF

[Tripon]

On Friday, Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed the latest power grab by the North Carolina legislature: an attempt to reduce the number of judges on the state's Court of Appeals to prevent Cooper from appointing judges to it.

GOP legislators haves enough votes in the legislature to override a veto. But even if they do, a Republican judge just retired early in an attempt to thwart the ”court unpacking" scheme.

Judge Douglas McCullough faced the mandatory retirement age next month, but he instead resigned early, allowing Gov. Cooper to appoint a younger judge to replace him. If Judge McCullough had stayed and the court unpacking bill became law, then the governor would not have been able to replace Judge McCullough next month. Gov. Cooper appointed Judge John Arrowood, the first openly gay member of the court of appeals.

House Bill 239 would reduce the number of justices on the state's Supreme Court from 15 to 12, thus preventing the governor from making appointments to replace the next three judges who leave the court. Two Republican judges, in addition to McCullough, will reach the mandatory retirement age during Cooper's term.

https://thinkprogress.org/north-carolina-gop-judge-resigns-1559cf0dbb8c

Reason why MuCullough needed to retire early (well, other than it help prevent fuckery).

Each of the 15 North Carolina Court of Appeals judges writes on average about 100 opinions per year.

When former Judge Linda Stephens used to explain the court's workload to students, she'd often compare opinions to term papers.

”But that's a lot more than a term paper," she said in a phone interview this week.

In what's been characterized by some as Republican lawmakers' latest power grab, House Bill 239 would reduce the court's allotment of judges from 15 to 12. The bill comes as three Republican judges face mandatory retirement, and if passed, would prevent Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper from appointing replacements to fill their seats.

More significantly for North Carolinians, the bill would increase remaining judges' workload and likely result in delays, both in getting an appeal heard and in getting a decision.

Rep. Justin Burr (R-Montgomery, Stanly) has insisted the bill was introduced without political motivation but he's also said the bill was introduced without consideration or input from the Court of Appeals, its judges or the agency that administers the judiciary, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).

He's argued to his colleagues that the court's workload is shrinking but data shows no significant decrease in cases over the past 10 years.

Officials and stakeholders have also criticized the lawmaker for not considering petitions and motions filed in the court in his assessment that the workload warrants a reduction of judges.

http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2017/03/16/depth-look-n-c-lawmakers-attempt-shrink-court-appeals/

What North Carolina's Court of Appeals would look like if the law was in effect.

 

[cameron]

Good on McCullough.

McCullough isn’t the only one protesting the bill. A bipartisan group of former North Carolina chief justices have also opposed the bill, claiming it would “seriously harm our judicial system.” GOP legislators have claimed that the shrinking of the court is justified by a reduced workload, but the chief justices said this argument is “premised on factual inaccuracies.” NC Policy Watch reached a similar conclusion after it dissected the court’s workload.

Nice to hear. Imagine how even more fucked things would be if something like "party over judiciary" was more prevalent.

Rep. Justin Burr (R-Montgomery, Stanly) has insisted the bill was introduced without political motivation but he’s also said the bill was introduced without consideration or input from the Court of Appeals, its judges or the agency that administers the judiciary, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).

lol

 

[Oblivion]

Good on McCullough.

Nice to hear. Imagine how even more fucked things would be if something like "party over judiciary" was more prevalent.


lol

In a way it's almost admirable how fucking openly corrupt Republicans are.

 

[2Smashed4U]

From what I'm reading here, a Republican did he right thing for once?

Good for him.

 

[Syriel]

From what I'm reading here, a Republican did he right thing for once?

Good for him.

Judges don't usually like legislative fuckery, no matter the stripe.

Judicial branch is a check and dedicated judges put that over partisan concerns.

 

[FyreWulff]

even though judges are openly partisan appointments, a lot of them also really fucking hate when their branch is brazenly messed with. Good on this judge for holding proper law over party.

I mean goddamn, they even reduced it by the specific number of upcoming forced retirments to try and hold on to getting it back later.

edit: can the two upcoming also use the same strategy? looks like it'd make it a 8 gop / 7 dem judges court, instead of 7-4.

 

[Slayven]

In a way it's almost admirable how fucking openly corrupt Republicans are.

So damn blatant. but democrats are the snowflakes

 

[MooseKnuckles]

The politicization of judicial appointments in the US has always seemed very uncomfortable to me, but this seems pretty outrageous even by those standards. Although the Republicans got away with blocking Obamas SC nominee for a year, so maybe this kind of escalation isn't that unexpected.

Good on the judge for standing up for the integrity of the system.

 

[kirblar]

even though judges are openly partisan appointments, a lot of them also really fucking hate when their branch is brazenly messed with. Good on this judge for holding proper law over party.

I mean goddamn, they even reduced it by the specific number of upcoming forced retirments to try and hold on to getting it back later.

edit: can the two upcoming also use the same strategy? looks like it'd make it a 8 gop / 7 dem judges court, instead of 7-4.

The legal system is all about established doctrine and rule. Not all that shocked that a bunch of them might be pissed about radical change here.