Posted by 
At the Business Council of Alabama conference this weekend, BCA’s ProgressPAC endorsed Republican Supreme Court candidate Greg Shaw over Democrat Deborah Bell Paseur. Many observers will not be surprised by the endorsement as much as they will be by how difficult the decision-making process was. Both candidates had been endorsed by the BCA for other races. Someone who attended the conference told the Parlor that the endorsement came as a result of “painful conversations, painful decisions.”
The decision was so difficult that the group discussed the idea of not endorsing anyone at all for the race. The discussion was not heated, both candidates were discussed in positive terms, and the decision broke down based on who would take trial lawyer money and who would not, according to the conference attendee. Paseur would not say that she would not take trial lawyer money, and Shaw did say he would not accept money from trial lawyers.
No other races were considered for possible endorsements.
Related Articles:
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
YAWN….no Harri Anne or Jay. We want real news, haha.
This post give perhaps the clearest view of the BCA’s purpose in the context of appellate elections. Their endorsement turned not on the qualifications of the candidates, but on which would likely accept money from from “trial lawyers”. Members of the bar on both sides of the fence are beginning to see the effect the BCA has had on influencing judicial elections and the Republicanization of the Alabama Supreme Court. Some of the staunchest defense lawyers I know are now lamenting their once ardent support for Republican candidates on the Supreme Court as civil defense work is slowly drying up as a result of the steady decline of civil filings. The state earned its reputation as a “tort hell” in the 80s when every excessive verdict was rubber stamped by the all Democrat Supreme Court. The pendulum has now swung to the opposite extreme and verdicts that should be affirmed are reversed or remitted. The best thing for the people of Alabama is to have balance on the Court. That balance must fall somewhere between the positions of the BCA and the Association For Justice.
What does the BCA have against Trail Lawyers? Everyone is against trail lawyers until they need one. Bush and Dick wouldn’t be occupying the White House today had it not been for their team of trail lawyers.
That’s “trial lawyers”, not “trail lawyers”. Trail lawyers represent cowboys
LOL, that reminds me of a paper I did in Jr. High, It was on the famous Rosenberg Trial….I wrote Trail all the way through the paper. Lost two points, but still made a 98!
It will be more painful if they lose as they did with Sue Bell Cobb!
The point of Zorro’s sword is painful too!! Just ask the Frito Bandito! No more Fritos for him.
This could come back to bite BCA and Judge Shaw very soon. Alabama Canon of Judicial Conduct 2C forbids judges from creating”… the impression that they are in a special position to influence him” which this pledge appears to do. How can the promise to only assoicate for campiagn purposes with one group of litigants over another not cvreate the impression that the BCA will be favored in court decisions?
oh, poor, poor BCA. They have such a hard time trying to decide who would best serve their interests. wah, wah, wah.
Thank heaven for the BCA and the rest of the business community for the focus they placed on dousing the raging inferno of tort hell. If the defense lawyers are lamenting the decline of civil filings then that is yet another testament to the welcome turnaround on the Alabama Supreme Court. The state’s legal climate — and as a result the business climate — are dramatically improved from the late ’80s and early ’90s and that didn’t happen with weak-kneed endorsements of candidates who are looking to straddle the philosophical fence.
Same group of butt holes that hate Paul Hubbert. The only differece between BCA and the folks they oppose is that they (BCA/Republican leadership) think they have “self righteousness” on their side. What a farce. Just another case of Billy Canary/Karl Rove justice. Why have elections when you can just buy the one you want. I appreciate Sue Bell Cobb. She stood for what she believed and although they tried the Clinton.Kennedy/Pelsosi/McGegor-gambling. etc that those pious members of the republican hiarchy use, she still kicked their asses. Sometimes truth and justice win out in spite of the bull crap spin..
Just to change the tone a bit. Is it true that the CASA Board of Directors are going to terminate Beth Chapman at tomoorrows board meeting?? I hear she has the fundraising business and pays herself about $85,000 a year out of a $135,000 dollar budget for her fundraing efforts. Isn’t that using your office for personal gain?? Is she a trail or trial lawyer too?? Surely she isn’t using her position for personal gain. My God, it appears the Republicans all over are coming out of the airport bathroom closets, fondling pages, raising taxes, giving huge business breaks to their contributors, they may even be some —-closet Democrats— hidden amongst their midst…
How else can one explain these hideous events among the party of self righeouness… WOW I mean WOW
Alabama Tribune, look over the Judicial Inquiry Commission’s opinions on the subject, and also think things through. If a judicial candidate can not refuse campaign contributions, combined with Alabama’s laws on PACs, PAC-to-PAC transfers, could make for real mischief.
Walt, The Judicial Inquiry Commission is a farce. It fails to act in all but the most egregious instances of judicial misconduct. In other words, when it has no other recourse. To the point, placing too much value on JIC opinions is a mistake.
Fo-fiver, I share your sentiments. Justice would be better served with a balanced court.
Mr. Moffett,
not all refusals of campaign contributions would create 2C issues. Only ones that create an impression of partiality. I did not see anything in my albeit brief review of the JIC opinions on the subject of contributions to support the proposition that a judge may ethically stgmatize lawyers solely becasue they represent people with interests adverse to his political patrons without raising 2C issues.
pachyderm,
It makes a mockery of the notion of a fair trial that you would have judges who think that only one side is worthy of respect and pretend that the other side has cooties or something for the judge’s personal profit (holding a very nice job). If you want to live in a free society, you cannot have justice for sale to anyone, including the BCA.
This kind of behavior would not be tolerated in any other context. If Judge Shaw had said that he would only accept money from criminal defense lawyers or divorce lawyers representing husbands, we would be outraged. Should we not defend our rights from the BCA too or do we need to change the state motto?
Alabama Tribune, under what circumstances could a judicial candidate refuse contributions without appearing partial? I can only think of three, object to the way its given (checks please no cash), the donation is illegal on its face (Judge, we want you to remember us when foo v bar comes up) or over an arbitrary amount (no donations > $50 please) set by the campaign.
BTW, does this create a duty for the candidate to accept donations that offset each other say, $500 from BigTobacco and $500 from SmokeEnders? In kind services (catering) from somebbq and somevegan?
What does the BCA have against TRAIL Lawyers?
Walt,
I think you are correct, but the problems of partiality would only be present in a case to which the refused class is party. For instance, if a candidate publicly refused contributions from members of the Communist Party then I would say that Judge’s impartiality would be drawn into question in a case involving the Communist Party of Alabama, no? If a candidate openly refused contributions from insurance companies, I would imagine that insurance companies would request recusals in their cases. In Sue Bell Cobb’s race, Drayton Nabers had to recuse himself from a case involving Milton McGregor when he made a big stink about not accepting money from gambling bosses.
The only problem is that Trial Lawyers are on almost every civil case before the court. It would be one thing to say “I will accept no money from lawyers or law firms,” but singling out the lawyers representing plaintiffs in personal injury cases seems to create an appearance of partiality.
Best Justice money can buy!
Reader, I think you have it right as to how the contribution refusals would play out in light of Canon 2C. I would add though, that the fact that the BCA has gotten the impression that his taking their money but not their opponents is fairly indicative that he has in fact created the impression that the BCA will enjoy special favors vis-a-vis trial lawyers and their clients in his rulings.
reader, I gather your argument is that since all the folks in court are primates, a judicial candidate can not refuse a campaign donation from a primate without the appearance of partiality. Following this line of thought leads to the notion since the CPUSA or UKA maybe a future party to case, a judge could not refuse the donation.
I also gather that somehow it is wrong for a judge to recuse himself from a personal injury case. Is it?
“My God, it appears the Republicans all over are coming out of the airport bathroom closets, fondling pages, raising taxes, giving huge business breaks to their contributors, they may even be some —-closet Democrats— hidden amongst their midst…
How else can one explain these hideous events among the party of self righeouness… WOW I mean WOW”
My Gosh, it appears the DEMS all over are coming out of Wash DC hotel rooms with madams, are involved in bi-sexual threesomes with their drivers, slaughtering babies, marrying the same sex, socializing with slum lords and taking their campaign contributions, accepting sweet mortgage deals from the Big Lending Banks, paying themselves from the pork funds they control, working in taxpayer-supported education jobs which they don’t actually do any meaningful work for, occupying/running for office when they can’t control half their body’s motor skills, appeasing terrorists, raising taxes, pardoning spouses of rich donors, etc.
How else can one explain these hideous, egregious events among the party of the hypocritical…Holy Crap I mean Holy Crap!
I have been a witness to the meat show put on by the BCA with regard to its slate of Candidates for Judicial races.
The BCA had a curtain similar to the Miss America pagent. The endorsed candidated marched across the stage to hoopla and roaring applause.
I wanted to go to the men’s room and vomit!
Was that any more offensive or sickening than seeing a white lady NY carpetbagger running for president go into a black church in Selma, Alabama and mimic “black-speak” intonations to the rapturous applause of the assembled black congregation???
Talk about Barfatorium!
Zorro,
My only point is that a Judge cannot pledge to refuse a donation and then SIT ON A CASE involving the party refused while claiming to maintain partiality. They can make whatever pledges they like while running, but those pledges they make ought to affect the cases they may ethically hear as impartial arbiters.
and zorro, my point was that Judges could rightfully refuse contributions from ALL lawyers and impartially hear their cases, just not CERTAIN lawyers based on the kind of law they practice.
AND, they can refuse whatever contributions they like. That seems a guaranteed right based on the First Amendment’s freedoms of speech and assembly. They simply must abide by the ethical implications of their refusals.
What do the Alabama State Supreme Court and a Contortionist have in common?
They both assume strange positions for money!
reader, whats wrong with moving for recusal, other than ticking off the judge. Seems to me, any attorney looking out for the best interest of his client, would seek recusal if he suspects the judge will not be impartial.
Sorry for posting as Zorro in #20, seems a buglet or three somewhere in firefox or the wetware.
[...] Doc’s Political Parlor: BCA Supreme Endorsement is ‘Painful Decision’ [...]
Mr. Moffett,
The problem with your solution is that it is unethical for judges to put lawyers in that position. That is the whole point of the conflict of interest canons. We do not want judges who are going to have to recuse themselves from every civil case involving a busniess that comes before the court. Hence it is illegal for Judge Shaw or any other judge to engage in conduct that would necessitate such a recusal.
All candidates for Judge, except probate Judge, must form a financial committee.
In theory, no candidate for Judge knows who contributes the campaign.
In theory, this keeps politics out of the Courtroom.
Zorro,
Go read Canon 2C again. How can it be argued that Judge Shaw has not created an impression that he will favor the BCA by his actions when the BCA itself (reasonably) believes that his promise to only consort with them and theirs means shows partiality?
Apparently you are a lawyer or have read some legal sites and can site some Judicial Cannons.
Bottom line, you will do what we do. You will keep anonymous.
Complain on anonymous chat sites where no one can find out who you are.
Why? We all know why! Don’t want to make waves. Don’t want the Bar Association to review your membership.
You will do what is safe for you and your family. Grumble on some chat sites and run for your life.
Alabama Tribune, one trusts that if Shaw is elected, complaints will be filed with the JIC and until then you will support his opposition.
This race could be a change from the usual snore fest most judicial races are.
Tribune, I’m looking forward to the filing of your JIC complaint against the Chief Justice for failing to recuse in the Exxon Mobil decision after publicly criticizing the company during her race against Nabers in ‘06 – while the case was still pending before the Court.
To answer Zorro in #30,
That theory is bogus. True, judicial candidates may have a “finance committee,” but any candidate can (and probably does) keep daily tabs on the incoming dough. At the very least, once the reports are filed in the SOS office and uploaded to the website, anybody (INCLUDING judicial candidates) can review contributions.
There is no perfect system for judicial selection. I believe that elections are the best we have available.
In so far as campaigns are executed, we should insist/require that candidates provide the most detailed information regarding their contributions in the swiftest manner that modern technology can facilitate. Then immediately displaying that info for public consumption helps the system work better.
Judges are all fallible human beings, despite what they think and tell you.
Zorro is my hero!
“I remember longing to stand beside [Atticus Fitch], to stand for what he stood for, and to fight the good fight.”
Atticus Fitch is a fictional character. He is promoted by the Bar Association as the “ideal” of what a lawyer should be.
In reality if Atticus were to walk with us today, he would probably be scorned by that same organization.
Rudy Baylor the young lawyer in “The Firm” came up against the slick lawyer,Leo Drummond, from the Great Benefit Insurance Company. Rudy asked him, ” Do you remember when you first sold out?”
Don’t you wish you could ask some of the Justices that same question?
” Do you remember when you first sold out?”