 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Planned Parenthood Issues in the News
Florida Supreme Court's authority challenged
Attorney cites state Supreme Court justices' failure to sign loyalty oaths
By Jim Ash
FLORIDA CAPITAL BUREAU CHIEF
Six of Florida's seven Supreme Court justices filed written loyalty oaths last year after conservative activists challenged their authority to sit on the bench. One of the ring leaders is a controversial Coral Gables attorney who wears his born-again Christianity on his sleeve and whose legal war against ultra-violent video games once landed him on "60 Minutes." Jack Thompson is facing a 10-year disbarment for professional misconduct and the Florida Supreme Court is supposed to have the final say.
But Thompson is arguing that the justices don't have the power to punish him because all of them except Chief Justice Fred Lewis failed to properly file written loyalty oaths when they came to the bench years ago. Thompson cites federal mandates and a 1983 Florida law that requires notarized forms — and he is adamant that the oversight is more than a harmless glitch. Years of Supreme Court rulings could hang in the balance, Thompson insists. "Where do you go from here?" Thompson said. "You can bet criminal defense attorneys are going to jump all over this."
Nonsense, say a host of state legal experts, including Attorney General Bill McCollum. McCollum's office is asking a Tallahassee federal judge to toss a lawsuit by another attorney challenging his disciplinary proceedings on the same grounds.
Washington, D.C., attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley sued the Florida Bar and the justices, claiming he has been harmed by their, "putative exercise of sovereign judicial power without authorization."
Attorney George Waas, a special counsel for McCollum, argued in court papers that the justices met the legal requirement when they raised their right hands and vowed to uphold the state and federal constitutions at their swearing in ceremonies. Sibley is merely trying a legal end run around the disciplinary process, Waas said.
Sibley counters that the law's the law. "This is not a paperwork problem but goes to the fundamental issue of a Republican form of government that abides by the rule of law," Sibley said. If it is just a housekeeping problem, Sibley and Thompson argue, why did the justices file new loyalty oaths last October?
And why did the state Division of Elections update the loyalty oath requirements for candidates last year? Supreme Court spokesman Craig Waters said the justices were attending a Florida Bar conference this week and unavailable for comment.
|
|
|
