Plagiarizing, arts-hating, Batman fanboy Josh Cockroft is up to his old tricks.
Lost in the sea of bigoted legislation that's been recently proposed by his House colleagues, Josh has recently introduced House Joint Resolution 1006. If passed by the legislature, it would put a state question on the ballot that could dramatically alter the way Supreme Court Justices are chosen in our state; changing the system from one where justices are vetted and nominated by a special committee and then appointed by the Governor, to a popular vote system where justices are elected by Oklahoma voters.
Terrifying, huh?
This is what Cockroft, who I believe was home schooled in the backyard shed with Carl from Sling Blade, wrote about HJR 1006 on Facebook. Prepare to have your mind blown...
I was going to check to see if Cockroft plagiarized that statement (or confused it with "speech notes"), but then it occurred to me that nobody else is dumb enough to write something that ignorant and stupid so I didn't look it up.
Seriously, what a fool. Did he sniff a lot of homemade glue during his civics lessons or something? The guy really typed that the "judicial branch of government was never intended to be a co-equal branch of government" and that "the legislative branch is predominate over all others." As a guy who recently lost a high-profile court case where the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the legislature was prohibited from infringing upon the powers of the executive branch, I have to disrespectfully disagree with him.
Also, I'm pretty sure that our state's founders were pretty damn clear when they wrote Article 4 of the Oklahoma Constitution:
§ 1. Departments of government - Separation and distinction.
The powers of the government of the State of Oklahoma shall be divided into three separate departments: The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial; and except as provided in this Constitution, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial departments of government shall be separate and distinct, and neither shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others.
For giggles, I asked Oklahoma Political Science / Weight Loss guru Dr. Keith Gaddie what he thought about Cockroft's statement. This is what he said:
"I think Rep. Cockcroft needs to go read Alexander Hamilton, specifically Federalist #78. This is the typical argument of every lawmaker who has failed in court when trying to discriminate against those he doesn't like. I have no objection to electing judges. I just object to his logic, which is peculiar."
I kind of agree with Gaddie. Who do you want to elect supposedly unbiased, objective judges? The people or Mary Fallin. It's a pick your poison deal.
That being said, I think this change could be a huge mistake. Even though it does have its biases, political jousting and scandals, the judicial branch is the last outpost of government that's not totally under the control of money and political parties. Do you really want Supreme Court Justices to have to accept campaign contributions, pander to donors and run for a judicial seat like they're a desperate legislator? Of course not! The longer we can keep corporations, special interests, Super PACS, and uneducated elected idiots who plagiarize articles and dress up like Batman out of the judicial branch, the better.
