Eric Giunta
Did justices up for retention invent new workers' compensation law out of thin air?
By Eric Giunta
Three Florida Supreme Court justices are up for retention on the November ballot, and Sunshine State News is the only source that is examining their judicial record. In this latest installment, we explore a landmark ruling affecting workers' compensation claims.
Although Justices Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis, and Peggy Quince are insisting that voters should ignore their rulings when they head to the polls and consider only whether these justices have ever committed a crime, their critics and other legal scholars say otherwise: it is absolutely relevant to their retention that voters consider whether these justices are interpreting relevant law according to its original public meaning, or whether they are activists who ignore the law and impose their own personal moral philosophy on cases that come before them.
(For the last several weeks Sunshine State News has reached out to the three justices [who are traveling around the state to sit down with newspaper editorial boards] to interview for this series. In September, we were notified by a representative of their joint campaign that they are specifically refusing to interview with the News, which is Florida's only center-right news organization.)
Last week, we took a look at these justices' ruling in the 2006 case Bush v. Holmes, which concerned the state constitutionality of private school vouchers. Today, we examine another ruling critics claim is a textbook example of judicial activism: Aguilera v. Inservices Inc. (2005) . . .
Catch the rest of the story at Sunshine State News.
© Eric Giunta
October 21, 2012
Three Florida Supreme Court justices are up for retention on the November ballot, and Sunshine State News is the only source that is examining their judicial record. In this latest installment, we explore a landmark ruling affecting workers' compensation claims.
Although Justices Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis, and Peggy Quince are insisting that voters should ignore their rulings when they head to the polls and consider only whether these justices have ever committed a crime, their critics and other legal scholars say otherwise: it is absolutely relevant to their retention that voters consider whether these justices are interpreting relevant law according to its original public meaning, or whether they are activists who ignore the law and impose their own personal moral philosophy on cases that come before them.
(For the last several weeks Sunshine State News has reached out to the three justices [who are traveling around the state to sit down with newspaper editorial boards] to interview for this series. In September, we were notified by a representative of their joint campaign that they are specifically refusing to interview with the News, which is Florida's only center-right news organization.)
Last week, we took a look at these justices' ruling in the 2006 case Bush v. Holmes, which concerned the state constitutionality of private school vouchers. Today, we examine another ruling critics claim is a textbook example of judicial activism: Aguilera v. Inservices Inc. (2005) . . .
Catch the rest of the story at Sunshine State News.
© Eric Giunta
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
