Wow, I certainly picked a dud of a week in which to start giving y’all news summaries. I’m glad I didn’t get up early to do this virtual front page; it wouldn’t have been worth it. Nevertheless, here are your top stories:
Ways and Means chair steps down — OK, I’m cheating here a little bit. I was initially going to do this like a daily, morning newspaper, and since this happened today, it wasn’t available to any of the dailies. But I might as well embrace, as a positive good, the fact that this medium is not limited that way. Anyway, this is kind of a lame lede story, since it’s from the realm of the Washington spin cycle and I HATE stories like that (more of a lede for The Washington Post than for anyone else). But it actually happened, unlike the ledes of The State and the WSJ, which were “something MIGHT happen” stories, which in my strict interpretation cannot be lede stories — at least, not in MY hard-news virtual newspaper.
GM blames recall on Toyota supplier — I only saw this story in The Financial Times, which surprised me. This one is pretty choice — GM was chortling over Toyota’s recall woes, then had a massive recall (with attendant horror stories) of its own. Now, it blames its troubles on Toyota. Beautiful. I might have led with this, on this weak news day, if the Rangel thing hadn’t come up. By the way, this story should include a refer to the latest shakeup of the company you and I own.
Tort reform — Nothing seems to have actually happened here — thereby disqualifying it as a lede story (even though The State led with it) — but it’s a situationer on an important SC issue.
Postal Service eyes cutbacks — Another contender for lede on this weak news day. The Post Office wants to quit delivering on Saturday, and implement other cutbacks.
Chile quake — Still the biggest story of the week. Hillary Clinton arrived to express U.S. concern and offer support.
Columbia trolleys — A little change-of-pace talker on a weak news day. Might want to refer to Warren Bolton’s column on the bus system, just to bring readers from past to present.
An inside-baseball postscript: Seeing how slim the pickings were, after breakfast this morning, I ran by Publix to check out the front page of The New York Times. Back when I was the front-page editor in Wichita in the mid-80s, the NYT rescued me on many a night. Often, when there was nothing strong local and the WashPost and the L.A. Times and the wires had zip, the NYT would pull a strong lede story out of nowhere, as a virtuoso demonstration of pure enterprise. It was that, more than anything, that caused me to believe that the NYT was more than just a reputation. Unfortunately, those days are past. Today, the NYT led with a New York state story about Gov. Paterson — which was NOT a legitimate lede story for an edition that went out of state. Tsk, tsk.
But there’s a consolation — it was at the little Publix newsstand that I saw the Financial Times story about GM.
Related Posts
Family Court Judge Charley Segars-Andrews’s suit about the unconstitutionality of the legislature’s finding her unqualified after all the lawyers’ boards found her totally qualified? Separation of powers seems important(a joke here in SC, for the most part, but worth fighting for, no?)
You got everything right but the date.
Arrgghhh! Fixed it.
And Kathryn, I might have to go back and read the rest of that story. The part I read — up to the jump — didn’t give me any reason to think that the judge’s suit was of great import.
That happens a lot with news stories, unfortunately. They give me a lot of irrelevant crapola before the jump, not answering my key questions, and I lose interested and don’t go to the jump.
I became WAY more critical of news stories when I moved to editorial, because when you’re in editorial you approach every news development with one question in mind: What do I, as a citizen, need to think about this? News reporters seem never to ask themselves that question, so if they answer it at all they bury it. Time and time again over the years I’ve read news stories that never got around to answering the very first question that the story raised in my mind. Most frustrating.
OK, I read it. Still not sure whether this is something of great moment or one plaintiff’s beef.
I think I was turned off to the gravity of the story initially by John’s use of “politician” as though there were something inherently wrong in the political branches deciding who will serve on the bench. I would say that’s pretty much essential to checks and balances.
The problem with our system in SC is that the executive has no say in the process, so that the judiciary is shaped only by the legislative branch. Just one of many, many things that I’ve railed about for years in this Legislative State.
But for a system that DOES only allow the legislative input, this seems to me as good as any. And to the extent that the plaintiff is claiming that input is constitutionally unsound, I’m unconvinced. Which leaves me still sort of thinking that this is one plaintiff who didn’t get what she wanted, rather than a titanic contest between the political branches (which would elevate it to the front page).
But perhaps I’m wrong. Am I?
I understand that the legislature via its committee *killed* her reappointment on the grounds that she was not competent.Her alleged incompetence was a supposed ethical breach wherein she ruled in a case (it gets really complex here, so stay with me) where one of the parties’ relatives had been represented by, I believe, her husband–but it may have been one of her husband’s law partners–years before. This was only brought to her attention after the case had been heard and was awaiting her ruling (it may even have been a motion to reconsider her ruling) She sought formal ethical guidance and was told to go ahead with the ruling. The loser went to the legislature to get her removed.
All of this was not in the short story, but has been extensively covered in the paper before.
What you basically have here is a losing litigant trying to get a judge removed through legislative process, on grounds that have been thoroughly considered by those with knowledge and expertise (the judicial and ethics systems) and found wanting.
It is a clear cut case, to me, or as alleged by Judge Segars-Andrews, of a litigant doing an end run around the judicial system by going to the legislature to get the judge removed. Judges, especially family court judges who decide divorce and custody issues without a jury,are looking over their shoulders. Indeed, it was pointed out in the article that the Supremes might even be influenced by the fear of the legislature.
What does your buddy Justice Toal think, I wonder….
I dunno, but whatever Jean says, that’s what I think… And in any case, what she and the other four think is what matters.
I follow your description of the sequence of events, counselor, but what I don’t get is why the screening panel would go along with a vindictive litigant. What’s their motive here?
Maybe it should have been front page. If Bobby Harrell was in the courtroom (which I learned on the jump) maybe HE sees it as a major constitutional question. Or maybe he was there for another reason, which again, has not been shared with me…
I’m thinking the litigant is sufficiently well-connected to convince the legislators, especially those who hate lawyers and/or the judiciary, to see things his way instead of the way all the professionals did.
and if you think the bar is somehow easy on its own, think again. Maybe if one is at one of the major firms, but otherwise…even the majors have had their share of disbarments.
If you haven’t followed the case in the Post and Courier, before The State picked up on it really late in the game, you may want to check their archives. The P&C online hardly mentions it anymore, probably due to the amazing number of comments they were getting which ranged from citizenry infuriated about the operations of the family court to the legal community picking sides for and against the judge and her lawyer husband.
The judge actually did recuse herself after the apparent conflict was brought to her attention, then changed her mind and stayed on the case. As I recall, that was well before the ruling.
I got interested in the case because I thought it was strange a Charleston judge sitting on a 3rd Circuit case. As someone who was in the family court in the 3rd regularly from ’94-’07, I had never known a visiting judge to come in from Charleston (and neither did any of the other people I knew who were regularly in court. That doesn’t mean we didn’t just miss them).
I figured she had been sent there for a reason, to come in with a decision that some politician wanted made for a friend/client.
Is that cynical enough for you?
I appeared before Jocelyn Cate (the Sanford judge) several times up here in the Fifth Circuit. They try to move the judges around more…
A judge’s removing herself after hearing the case is damaging to the parties, from a cost perspective, and b/c one party always benefits from a delay….since there aren’t usually pots of money lying around in a divorce case, the whole tenor of the case, especially settlement positions, can change…
She sought ethical guidance and was told it was fine to remain. She gets paid the same whether she stays on the case or not. To lose your job after seeking all the impartial guidance you can seems like it would be very chilling to other judges…