This week, the Hawaii Supreme Court just issued a truly shocking opinion that unleashed a torrent of rage and recrimination against the majority of the United States Supreme Court, including suggesting that they are de facto racists. The opinion by Justice Todd W. Eddins is devoid of judicial restraint and decorum. The fact that other justices would join in such an unhinged screed is a disgrace to the court and the Hawaii bar.
The case itself raised an issue of the admissibility of evidence at a criminal trial, which the court found denied the defendant a fair trial due to later scientific developments. The issue raises some interesting questions of the standard that applies to such challenges. (While unanimously vacating the conviction, the court actually divided 3-2 over the standard).
The majority ruled that the false-evidence standard applied under the state constitution when prosecutors knowingly present untrue testimony, holding that all that is required is that there is a “reasonable possibility” that the challenged evidence influenced the vote of any juror.
Reasonable minds can disagree on that standard, but the opinion suddenly veers off into a completely gratuitous and irrelevant attack on the integrity of the United States Supreme Court.
Equally troubling is that legal pundits like Mark Stern (who covers the Supreme Court for Slate) have heralded Eddins as “the one judge who has the guts” to denounce the Court.
Eddins writes a chest-thumping diatribe about how his court “takes no instruction” from the “hubristic originalists” on the Supreme Court. Of course, it has been 210 years since Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) held that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over state court rulings. It has been roughly 170 years since the Court ruled in Ableman v. Booth (1858) that state courts cannot overrule or obstruct judgments of the federal courts.
Justice Eddins and his colleagues are not declaring a judicial insurrection but rather a form of passive aggression, a pledge to minimize any orders from a Court described as “driven by agenda and intent on swiping power that belongs to the people.”
He was asserting the separate authority under the state constitution to render opposing opinions, presumably when those decisions do not contravene federal rights. Eddins asserted that the majority of justices “systematically dismantles democratic safeguards, steamrolls constitutional liberties, and tramples human dignity.” He proclaimed that their attack on democracy itself “does not chart the course for the Hawaiʻi Constitution.”
Unlike the Supreme Court, Eddins declares that his court will “follow principles, not agendas” and take “no guidance” from “the Supreme Court’s imperious ideology.” He included broadsides against the Supreme Court barring racial gerrymandering and other forms of racial discrimination, including a disgraceful claim that “The Roberts Court sees only white.”
In rejecting what he claims as his colleagues seeking to apply a standard imported from the demonized Supreme Court, Eddins dramatically declared that this court “needs no part of this. The Hawaiʻi Constitution was built to stand on its own. And so it does.”
It was the most substantive declaration since Sen Cory Booker’s “I am Spartacus” moment. The Hawaii Supreme Court will not truly stand on its own. It is part of a constitutional system that requires adherence to binding precedent, even rulings that Eddins finds obnoxious. Obviously, the state can impose its own constitutional values so long as it does not contravene federal rights and jurisdiction, which are quite broad. The rest comes off as using a judicial opinion to virtue signal.
For some of us who value federalism, there is no question that state courts have the authority to protect state constitutional values that do not violate the federal Constitution. Ironically, it is the conservative majority that is most likely to defend that state authority. However, Eddins could have made that point without the vituperative and injudicious attack on his federal counterparts who hold different jurisprudential views.
Notably, Eddins cited Justice Jackson as the model of true fealty to the law. He is not the first state supreme court justice to do so, as discussed earlier in a case from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Since her confirmation in 2022, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has established a legacy that is fast becoming one of the most radical in the Court’s history. Her sole dissents have drawn sharp criticism from conservative and liberal colleagues.
These federal and state Supreme Court opinions are a glimpse into what awaits the country if Democratic leaders carry out their threat to take over the Supreme Court by adding four liberal justices in the image of Justice Jackson.
Nevertheless, pundits like Stern are lionizing Eddins for his pledge to use his court to resist: “When state judges refuse to carry that project any further than federal law requires, the machinery of judicial supremacy begins to jam. Eddins has shown his colleagues exactly where to stick the wrench.”
Nothing says judicial restraint like a good wrench throwing.
It is not even the Calvinball jurisprudence of Justice Jackson. Justice Eddins reduces our judiciary to the level of Rip Torn’s Dodgeball:
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
So, what to do.
Can we indict them for judicial insurrection/sedition?
We should have left Hawaii as a protectorate and made the Philippines one of our states.
For those of us unfortunate enough to live in a marxist (I don’t sugar-coat it any longer) state, it’s mindless, hate-filled rhetoric like this decision that we will continue to encounter. Perhaps a Civil War is the only way to solve the current problem. I sure hope the marxists can be stripped of their citizenship & given 10 days to leave the country. Perhaps there’s a marxist paradise out there that would welcome all of them! I refuse to capitalize the word “marxist” as it does not deserve that courtesy.
@suezappa
Same here, it’s intentional. I no longer capitalize ‘dems’, either.
I stopped capitalizing anything left of center the day they elected obama.
I have never been to Hawaii, yet I understand that Hawaii has a lot going for it in respects to beauty, activities and strategic importance. That being said, since it has only been a state for 67 years, would it be in their best interests to take a look at seceding from the US. Then they could run their state as they wish and not have to abide by the horrible Supreme court or any other restrictions the federal government puts on them.
Of course it should be clearly explained to the public what that independence would mean, financially (govt. aid) and strategically ( military presence and spending) to obtain their liberal goal of rule.
Would or could this spread to other states some would ask or point out. IMHO it would be a different scenario. Hawaii is separated from the contiguous states by a big ocean (Alaska by Canada and the same ocean) so it would have less effect on borders, transportation, communication and trade.
rcs
I think you are on the right track here.
However, I am not sure if secession is really needed in the case of Hawaii.
As we already know, Hawaii is not REALLY a part of the United States, and people born there are not REALLY United States citizens.
So in reality, it is not REALLY necessary for Hawaii to secede. They have never REALLY been part of the United States in the first place.
We should just ignore them, and treat them like any other foreign country, such as Kenya.
How’d that “secession” thing work the last time a few states tried it?
So, what to do?
Can we arrest them all and indict for judicial insurrection/sedition?
simply demote them back to protectorate (that gets rid of crazy maisie) and pick up the Philippines as our new state. Just keep the protectorate for our naval base and let the Hawaiians fend for themselves.
I agree.
Just let the Hawaiians fend for themselves.
After all, anyone born there is not REALLY a United States citizen anyway.
Next thing you know a Hawaiian will think that he is eligible to be President of our great country.
What stupidity !!!
And welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to your preview of the *actual* Supreme Court if leftists ever hold power again, or modern law school grads ever take the reins. We are up against real, honest to goodness fascism coming from the left. The hate, the lies, the madness of the modern left – all off the chart. This is NOT a passing fad.
Once again Turley proves that he is nothing more than a low-level legal hack.
What makes him think that SCOTUS has any jurisdiction over Hawaii ???
This is crazy thinking.
As we all know, Hawaii is not REALLY a part of the United States, so how can SCOTUS have any jurisdiction.
Next thing you know, Turley will be claiming that people born in Hawaii are actually United States citizens.
Sheesh, what a moron !!!!!
Turley might just as well argue that SCOTUS has jurisdiction over courts in Kenya.
Obviously Turley’s brain has turned to mush.
The only HACK here is you ano.
And yet Hawaii enjoys the Social Security System, Medicare system, three Veteran hospitals and a host of other benefits provided by the Federal Government. If Hawaii is not a state why should they receive these benefits? If this should happen Anonymous would be screaming something about too many billionaires.
There’s no accounting for crackpots.
Pew found that 83% of Americans – including 71% of Democrats and 95% of Republicans – support government-issued photo identification. Pass the Save America Act.
TiT,
At first I thought this was a Bee head line, but nope! It is real!
White House dishes out new election security jab over Olive Garden’s pasta pass ID policy
“No. The Never-Ending Pasta Pass is only for use by the Passholder whose name is printed on the Pass,” Olive Garden replied. “Passes are personalized and non-transferable.”
“Passholders must present a valid photo I.D. along with the Pass at the time of ordering,” the chain instructed from its X account.”
“Olive Garden takes their Pasta Pass security more seriously than Democrats take election security,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital. “It’s sad but true.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-dishes-new-election-security-jab-olive-garden-pasta-pass-id-policy?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
Im 62 and have followed the Supreme Court my entire adult life. Im not a constitutional scholar. In my opinion we currently have the most constitutionally correct Supreme Court in decades.
In general, I agree. (I’ve got a decade on you, BTW) There have been decisions from the SC that I don’t personally like, but I find that I can usually follow the logic that leads back to both the “law” (as written) and, further, the constitutionality. (At the risk of rage-baiting the trolls here, I won’t cite the rare cases that I disagree with.)
But the difference between us, you and I, and the mouth-frothing left is that we adhere to what the law *says* and their goal is to enforce what they *wish* the law said.
And this is the frustration I carry: The constitution clearly defines the remedy for the left’s disgruntlement: If you don’t like the law, get the legislature to change the law. If the law you like is unconstitutional, then amend the constitutaion.
Don’t like the 2nd amendment? Go ahead and amend it out. Don’t like Citizen’s United? Or Loper Bright v. Raimondo? Go ahead and get Congress to change the law any way that suits you.
But this endless, “We need to pack the court with people who will rule *our* way” mentality undermines both articles 1 and 3 of the constitution.
I agree with you 100%!
Could the US Supreme Court institute contempt and disbarment proceedings against the judge. Could it refuse to hear or accept motions made by Hawaii until the injudicious opinion is withdrawn?
Such actions are not really necessary, because SCOTUS doesn’t actually have jurisdiction over Hawaii.
SCOTUS only has jurisdiction over courts in the United States, and as we all know, Hawaii has never REALLY been part of the United states, and people born there are not REALLY United States citizens.
The Sun has fried the brains of the Hawaiian Supreme Court along with the entire political leadership of Hawaii. When you have Hawaii represented by CRAZY Senators as MAZIE what can you expect of the Dem led leadership and Courts of Hawaii.
I agree.
All this proves once and for all that Hawaii is not REALLY part of the United States, and people born there cannot possibly be considered as United States citizens.
We should just ignore these antics as we do for other foreign countries such as Kenya.
*. Publish Eddins screed, por favor PT.
Please don’t quote Slate or any of their writers as it is an insanely left wing rag. It’s like citing MSNOW about anything political.
There are outlets and various media sites that have rendered themselves useless. Slate, the Guardian, CNN, the NY Times etc.
The Supreme Court needs to bench slap these narcissistic virtue signaling lower courts and it needs to happen soon.
It is possible that Senator Mazie “The Crazy” Hirono (D, Hawaii) is giving Hawaiian judges lessons in decorum and erudition.
I don’t think that Sen. Hirono is crazy. She’s mind numbingly stupid. There is a difference.
Sounds like Jackson and AOC.
Hey Jon….are you embarrassed for having been a Democrat, yet?
Why do Democrat Judges get to make stuff up…and NEVER get punished.
If a judge is over turned 3 times…they should be removed…and if found to have committed CONSPIRACY…they should be JAILED
YIKES…
Very high chinese population in Hawaii (15.78%).
TDS capital of the US.
I thought is was mostly people from Japan. O-well
Bascially Democrats are FINE with Sedition and TREASON!
Democrats HATE America
Believe them when they TELL YOU THEY DO!
They are FINE with CHEATING, Stealing and Jailing political opponents
GOP needs to GROW A PAIR and Abolish the Democrat Party
Every Democrat helping illegal invaders, is COMMITTING TREASON!…EVERY ONE!
In other words, leftys get really mad when they are losing.
and they have been losing big time for a while now, so really mad.
Now you know why they want to pack the court.