The New York Times in its editorial “Impartial Justice at Risk” doesn’t want the Florida public to have any say or input on the selection or retention of judges.  No, they simply want the citizens of Florida to shut their mouth and give essentially life-time appointments to judges despite their judicial actions.  Just as with campaign finance, the New York Times is just fine with less democracy and free speech and they will defend justices who use their ideology in interpreting the law…. as long as it is a liberal ideology.

With its activism and lack of impartiality, the Florida Supreme Court has already created a perception among Florida legislators and citizens that the dominant left wing of the court does not give conservative philosophy a fair and objective review and too eager to strike down any law not in line with their personal political philosophy.  There is a significant belief that the Court has become way too politicized, substituting their liberal judgment for that of conservative legislation and governance.  The elite in Florida can deny it or ignore it, but in this country if something is politicized the only legal way to change it is through political change and the ballot box.  In this instance, average citizens have only been provided a small morsel of democracy where the public can only retain or not retain a justice.  The people should exercise that right and then seek more.