Perhaps the hottest political topic of the long and glorious Idaho summer is the question of how we select candidates for the state’s judiciary. The gross manipulation being employed by two justices of our Supreme Court is just the latest complication in a long standing strategy by liberals to seize control of this Third Branch in order to advance their social agenda.

Over the past several years, the media have worked with powerful folks like Justice Trout and former Speaker Bruce Newcomb to create the impression that the public must remain largely ignorant of the views and prejudices of candidates. This “undercover” selection process has been equated with the pursuit of blind justice and impartiality once the candidate enters service.
But in reality – the key players in the judicial selection process have all the information they need to stack the bench with liberals. It is the vast majority of us who are expected to blindly follow their choices, hoping for the best. You can see how beautifully this supposed “judicial ethic” works for those trying to impose an illicit agenda upon the public.

Under intense pressure from the peer groups and the media, candidates for the judiciary have lately taken a position in which they refuse to answer public surveys about their political and judicial philosophies. Most recently, candidates for the Schroeder seat refused to answer questions posed by Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance.

We believe they were wrong to do so. We believe that every candidate for the judiciary has a set of beliefs and values which will greatly influence how they conduct themselves on the bench; this qualifies them as members of the human race. And we believe that We the People have the right to know those prejudices before they are granted the mantle of public power.

A recent federal court decision in Wisconsin reminds us that the current propaganda about judicial candidates needing a sphinx-like posture to be considered serious judges is just plain hogwash.

Federal District Judge John Shabaz has granted a permanent injunction against provisions of the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct that, here-to-fore, prohibited candidates from responding to public questionnaires. His ruling is in line with a previous one handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. That case was decided in 2002. It is known as Minnesota Republican Party v. White. A majority of justices found that rules which demand silence of judicial candidates violated their First Amendment rights; the ruling also found that the public has a right to inquire of candidates their views. Rules or statutes which prohibit public discussion interfere gravely with the public’s ability to make informed decisions when casting their ballot.

These rulings from federal courts help illuminate the dastardly con job now being perpetrated upon Idaho by the media and their powerful friends in the lawyers’ guild.