honoluluadvertiser.com

Sponsored by:

Comment, blog & share photos

Log in | Become a member
The Honolulu Advertiser

Posted on: Tuesday, April 15, 2003

EDITORIAL
Hawai'i courts need more than hard knock

Does Gov. Lingle believe Hawai'i's court system unfair and dishonest, or is it simply inept?

It was not entirely clear from a speech delivered Friday by the governor to a judicial conference which of those criticisms was foremost on her mind.

But it was clear that Lingle is unhappy with our courts and expects things to change.

That sets up some fairly interesting dynamics as the Lingle administration moves forward and she entertains opportunities to appoint judges and even justices.

Already Lingle is looking at a list of six names for a nominee to the state Supreme Court.

During her campaign, Lingle was openly critical of the Supreme Court's well-developed reputation for judicial activism. From decisions advancing Native Hawaiian rights to one supporting the concept of same-sex marriage, the Hawai'i court has been known as one willing to "make law."

That approach makes many, particularly conservatives, uncomfortable. Lingle has said she would prefer a court that interprets the law as written rather than trying to advance its own legal doctrines.

That's a legitimate philosophical point of view and one with which many voters apparently agreed. But in her talk to the U.S. District Court conference, Lingle went somewhat beyond legal philosophy.

"We are counting on the courts to be fair and to be honest, but again in a real practical sense, only those of you in the legal community can do anything about policing the judiciary," Lingle said. "So don't let us down, we're counting on you."

She didn't cite any specifics of dishonesty or unfairness on the part of the courts, but her message seemed clear.

Lingle also complained about inefficiency in the courts, asserting that there were nearly 800 cases backlogged before the Supreme Court.

A court spokesperson said the number of cases briefed and awaiting disposition is somewhat less than the number cited by Lingle.

As time moves forward, Lingle will have do go beyond this kind of "I've-heard-that" criticism to specifics. And through her appointments and through active support for improvements sought by the courts (such as modern technology and additional judges), Lingle will have a chance to prove she is interested in more than provocative criticism.