Kit Bond Announces Support For Sotomayor

Senator Kit Bond announced yesterday that he intends to vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court. In announcing his decision, Bond observed that "elections do have consequences," and that "[he does] not believe that the Constitution tells [him he] should refuse to support her merely because [he] disagree[s] with her."

A cynic might note that Senator Bond can afford politically to depart from many of his Republican colleagues in supporting Sotomayor, due to his pending retirement. But, it should be noted that Bond also voted to confirm Justices Ginsberg and Breyer - both of whom were Clinton appointees.

Bond's official statement in support of Sotomayor can be read here. Despite its many barbed comments aimed at President Obama, it is well-worth reading as an exegesis on the Constitutional "advice and consent" function of the Senate. It appears that Senator Bond "gets it," and his colleagues in the GOP should give it a read.

"Better Courts for Missouri" Changes Name, Refiles Initiative Attacking Missouri Plan

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has reported that the Better Courts for Missouri Organization has changed its name to "ShowMe Better Courts," and that the organization has refiled a ballot initiative seeking to dispose of the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan.

The initiative petition was amended and refiled apparently as the result of an anonymous letter sent to the Secretary of State's office identifying various technical problems with the original proposed petition.

So why the late-breaking organizational name change from "Better Courts for Missouri" to "ShowMe Better Courts?" At time of publication, the Better Courts for Missouri website is still up and running, and the Missouri Secretary of State website reflects no registration of any corporation or fictitious name for "ShowMe Better Courts."

Prior to the name change, KCL&P recently reported that Wikipedia users seemingly associated with the Better Courts for Missouri organization have made substantial argumentative edits to the Wikipedia entry for the "Missouri Plan." (According to Wikipedia policy, content should be written neutrally, meaning Wikipedia "strive[s] for articles that advocate no single point of view." Due to the fact that content is open for editing by anyone, however, this policy is not always vindicated.) The edits made by these users include highly opinionated language critical of the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan, to include the statement that the selection of judges is made by "lawyer-dominated commissions," that the selection process results in a "low diversity of panels," and that there is "excessive secrecy/lack of transparency" in the process. KCL&P also reported that Better Courts for Missouri - which professes a desire to eliminate politics from the judicial selection process - recently posted on its website a call for followers to "tell Senator Bond and Senator McCaskill to vote against [Supreme Court Nominee Sonia] Sotomayor's nomination."

**UPDATE AND CORRECTION ** Upon further research, it appears that papers were filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission registering "ShowMe Better Courts" as a committee at least as early as July 17, 2009. Therefore, KCL&P's reporting regarding the Missouri Plan Wikipedia entries and Better Courts for Missouri's stance on the Sotomayor nomination post-dated the name change, at least insofar as the Ethics Commission is concerned.

Council To Consider Economic Development & Incentive Task Force

Tomorrow, the City Council will consider a resolution establishing an "Economic Development & Incentive Task Force." The resolution contemplates a task force comprised of not only city officials, but also representatives from the governments of Jackson, Clay and Platte Counties, as well as two members from the "development community."

This resolution would appear to be a reaction to recent statements by Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders that the county would pursue a lawsuit against the city's TIF commission if key changes in TIF oversight are not made. Sanders said his principal goal is to "make sure Jackson County taxpayers have a voice in how their tax dollars are being spent."

The question remains: Will the proposed "task force" and development of an "economic development policy" provide sufficient oversight to satisfy county officials? Time will tell...

City Council to Repeal Funeral Picketing Ordinance

** UPDATE ** This issue has been tabled by the City Council, in order to research and discuss other options for balancing the right of families to privacy with protesters' First Amendment rights.

The City Council's Public and Neighborhoods Committee is scheduled to take up an ordinance repealing the city's restrictions on picketing activities at funerals. You can read the ordinance here. Laws and ordinances restricting picketing at funerals have largely been enacted in reaction to vocal protests at the funerals of armed services members by the Phelps family of Topeka, Kansas, and their fringe Christian congregation.

The Council's reasoning for the repeal is carefully spelled out in the ordinance itself. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently ruled that state and local governments have "no compelling interest in protecting an individual from unwanted speech outside the residential context." Relying on this precedent, federal judges in the Western District of Missouri recently enjoined enforcement of the State of Missouri's funeral picketing restrictions in both St. Joseph and Gladstone, Missouri.

According to the City Council, this repeal is intended to foreclose the possibility of litigation against Kansas City which the legislation states will inevitably result in the invalidation of the Kansas City ordinance restricting picketing at funerals.

Wikipedia Propaganda on the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan - Who's Behind It?

**UPDATE** Some of the links weren't quite right earlier. Let's try again:

KCL&P has been keeping tabs on the Better Courts for Missouri ("BCM") group's efforts to undermine the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan. As reported last week, BCM has submitted a ballot initiative petition to the Missouri Secretary of State, seeking changes to the current process for appointing judges to Missouri's higher courts, and the circuit courts of certain counties in an around major metropolitan areas.

To those who are interested in studying the pros and cons of Missouri's current judicial selection system, KCL&P strongly recommends against giving much credence to the Wikipedia entry on the "Missouri Plan." It appears that Wikipedia users associated with the BCM organization have been busy over the last year and a half editing the "Missouri Plan" entry to present their rather partisan view of the Nonpartisan Plan.

For the unitiated, Wikipedia describes itself as a "multilingual, web-based, free encyclopedia project." Entries on Wikipedia are written collaboratively by anyone with enough computer savvy to log in and create an account. According to Wikipedia policy, content should be written neutrally, meaning Wikipedia "strive[s] for articles that advocate no single point of view." Due to the fact that content is open for editing by anyone, however, this policy is not always vindicated.

For obvious reasons, then, entries in Wikipedia should not always be taken as gospel truth. For example, content on Wikipedia pages is often edited by interested parties by means of so-called "sock puppets," which Wiki itself defines as "alternative account[s] used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies."

When one reads the Wikipedia entry on the "Missouri Plan," he/she will discover a highly partisan, argumentative entry riddled with edits by "sock puppet" users such as "Fulo2"; "Freemarketman," and "Grange1272." Most of these accounts have now been deleted, with no way of telling who the editors are or were. The edits made by these users include highly opinionated language critical of the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan, to include the statement that the selection of judges is made by "lawyer-dominated commissions," that the selection process results in a "low diversity of panels," and that there is "excessive secrecy/lack of transparency" in the process. These edits were first introduced by Wiki user "Fulo2" on March 21, 2008, and reintroduced by user "Freemarketman" after deletions shortly thereafter. Other seemingly biased "advocacy based" edits were made by user "Dlabtot" on several recent dates, such as when he/she removed tags indicating that the article's neutrality was disputed.

Who is making these edits? There is no good way to know. I can confirm, however, that the same three users - "Fulo2," "Freemarketman" and "Dlabtot" - have been heavily involved in the editing of the Wikipedia entry for "Better Courts for Missouri." Clearly, those responsible for web content for the Better Courts group have decided that they should also flout the Wikipedia "neutral content" policy, and use the "Missouri Plan" entry as a propaganda platform to advance their ideas regarding the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan. (Indeed, in the 19:39 entry for 30 May 2009 Revision History for Better Courts for Missouri, user Dlabtot explains his/her edit as follows: "I deleted this as it is exactly the same thing that is in the Missouri Plan section, the Missouri Plan section is being updated, but this one is not.")

This kind of "Swift Boat" editorializing has no place in what is supposed to be a neutral repository of human knowledge. Do yourselves a favor, folks, and find your information regarding the court plan controversy elsewhere.

Funkhouser Comments on Bates Settlement

As first reported yesterday by TKC, the City Counsel approved a settlement of $550,000 in the Ruth Bates lawsuit against Mayor Mark Funkhouser and the city.

Mayor Funkhouser held an impromptu news conference reacting to the settlement yesterday afternoon, which can be seen here.

The Health Care Bill - Some Reform Is Better Than No Reform

24thState has posted a thoughtful (but strident) offering on what the author perceives to be numerous problems with one iteration of the health care bill being considered by Congress. If you own a small business, you should definitely give it a read, as it succinctly and persuasively presents one side of the debate on health care.

While the author may have a point that certain aspects of the bill in its current form would create hardships for small employers, I don't agree with his ultimate conclusion that "doing nothing is better than passing any version of this bill." Here's my take:

My law firm employs around 20 people. We provide a generous health care package, but premiums have skyrocketed over the last 6-7 years (25% per year on average). The promises made in connection with tort reform passed in Missouri in 2005 - legislation which I did not support in the first instance - have gone unfulfilled. There has been no measurable effect on either malpractice or health care premiums.

Something has to change.

Am I suggesting that the current version of the bill is necessarily the best way to handle this mess? No. I'm willing to listen to anyone who might have a better idea as to how health care reform should be implemented. But make no mistake - employers and individuals are starting to hit critical mass in terms of their ability to both shoulder health care coverage and keep the doors open, and something has to be done.

My sincere hope has been that there is some middle ground to be found among the partisans in Congress regarding healthcare reform. That's why I was somewhat disappointed to hear today that Missouri's own Roy Blunt - chair of the House GOP Health Care Solutions Group - has essentially taken the position that there is no reason for the GOP to present their own version of a health care reform bill. Said Blunt: “Our bill is never going to get to the floor, so why confuse the focus? We clearly have principles; we could have language, but why start diverting attention from this really bad piece of work they’ve got to whatever we’re offering right now?”

If the House GOP's idea of a "health care solution" is to merely throw rocks at the current bill proposed by Democrats, then it seems they really have no "solution" in mind.