Quantcast
Home / Opinion / Commentary / Bill Montgomery is perfect candidate for state Supreme Court

Bill Montgomery is perfect candidate for state Supreme Court

opinion-WEB

I write to take exception to the op-ed about the nomination of Bill Montgomery to our state Supreme Court, written by Mark Harrison and published on Aug. 16. I do not know Harrison, but I have known Montgomery in various capacities for many years. Having written a graduate thesis on U.S. Supreme Court nominees and nominations, I’d also like to think I know something about judicial qualifications and history.

First, Harrison writes a great deal about the need for diversity on our Supreme Court – in a short op-ed, Harrison uses the word three times.  Apparently, however, diversity only means the same experience most others have had with political viewpoints only Harrison shares – definitions of diversity new and unique to any dictionary.  Indeed, it has been a longtime practice of many presidents to think diversity actually also

Seth Leibsohn

Seth Leibsohn

means diversity of experience and not exclusively appointing judges who see things through the lens or qualification of having been a judge on a lower court. This would be true of those who’ve made our judicial history as especially magnificent as it is, including great jurists from John Marshall to Louis Brandeis to Robert Jackson (whom Arizona’s own William Rehnquist clerked for). They, and many others, had not previously sat as judges prior to their service on the U.S. Supreme Court. Looking at the law, at various kinds of cases and controversies, simply does not require, and never did, prior judicial experience.  After all, the vast majority of our nation’s law professors, those who teach the law, have rarely if ever sat as any kind of judge. Diversity should include diversity of experience and views of the law from various perches, not just one. Most presidents and historians (never mind law schools) have understood that.

Second, Harrison completely bypasses the last decade of good and noble work Montgomery has engaged in as a public servant.  The fact that people have the luxury to forget the shape of county government when Montgomery first took office at the end of 2010 is a testament to how far he has brought the County Attorney’s Office and the dramatic shift in how county leaders now work together instead of sue each other. Additionally, the failure of the media to report on all the support, from past state bar presidents, criminal defense attorneys, formerly incarcerated offenders, and community leaders from various points on the political spectrum, permits critics to paint a false picture of Montgomery’s qualifications and accomplishments.

Finally, the focus on the new Commission on Appellate Court Appointments as the reason the governor can now appoint Montgomery should be seen as a correction, not a criticism.  As one of the people listed as a reference for Montgomery, and the friend of several others, I can tell you that the biggest difference between the current composition of the Appellate Court Commission and the previous iteration was just how serious they took their work. During the previous vacancy, I was never contacted nor were many others. Had I been and had those who sent in letters of support been contacted, the various criticisms and concerns raised about Montgomery’s candidacy could have been readily addressed. This time, Commission members charged with doing their due diligence actually did their job. I was asked about a number of concerns that my personal experience with Montgomery gave me the opportunity to directly address. That should have happened the first time.

Fortunately, a much more thorough and fair review occurred during this current vacancy process and now Montgomery is where he should be, before the governor for consideration to serve us as an associate justice. Montgomery is a West Point Graduate, decorated Gulf War Veteran, magna cum laude graduate in the top 10% of his class from the Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law, and a distinguished public servant who spends almost all his non-family free time assisting charitable endeavors. His service, his experience, his accomplishments, along with his commitment to transparency and access to the media and public, make him a perfect candidate for our State’s highest court.

Seth Leibsohn is a radio host on KKNT-AM, a senior fellow at The Claremont Institute and chairman of notMYkid.

2 comments

  1. Leibsohn as other supporters now going public for their chosen one, Bill Montgomery, have no use for relevant facts as salivate over possibility of a reactionary court majority. They do not dispute Montgomery’s almost total absence of appellate experience. The do not deny that he used public funds to repeatedly hire a well known a well known Islamophobe to train Maricopa law officers; predictably resulting in baseless labeling local Muslim leaders as dangerous & jihadists at a time when hate crimes against Muslims and others of color are increasing. Despite support from many conservatives and states like Texas for change, he lead the campaign, often behind closed doors, to maintain the costly, racially skewed, & unnecessary mass incarceration in AZ. He took steps to effectively deny the vote for medical marijuana, including admittedly improper prosecutions and under the table pressure on his buddy Ducey.
    After the packing of the review board by Ducey to guarantee the votes for the previously rejected Montgomery, one of this group claimed that this rejection was due to the well known bias by the prior reviewers against white males. Such supremacist conclusions were clearly not the result -as claimed by Leibsohn- of a better process by the newbies.

  2. This apologist for the failed, Bill Montgomery, conveniently glosses over the plethora of unfortunate decisions coming from his Office. These, in the main, have protected ultra conservatives, Rightwingnuts, and the bible humpers so prevalent in Arizona. Freedoms, and Rights of Women, LGBTQ Communities, and others, including, but not limited to those seeking Animal Welfare progress in a State not known for that, has been abrogated.
    There are other better choices, much better choices, we do not have to settle, once again for a marginal GOP Loyalist hack. We had hoped that ended with the exit of Michelle Reagan, our former embarrassment as Secretary of State.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

 

x

Check Also

maskeddollar

Support reasonable liability protections for essential businesses

Given that many businesses operate in multiple states, a federal law would provide much-needed clarity for businesses and consumers alike. And essential businesses like mine deserve reasonable protections from frivolous lawsuits that could put us out of business.