Overview of the California Supreme Court

Before I start discussing decisions of the California Supreme Court, it would make sense for you readers to understand the court first.

The Federal government has its constitution, which is supposed to carefully define the limits of the government's authority and protect individuals from encroachment by government.  The state also has a constitution, only the California constitution is much larger and more unwieldy.  California also creates a system of courts in addition to the legislature and executive.  How many congressmen exist in California?   80 assemblymen and 40 state senators.  Of course, the federal government, through the supremacy clause, takes precedence over state laws.  The Federal constitution takes seriously the idea of individual rights and freedom from tyranny of the majority.  California obviously has no problem with tyranny of the majority. In our system, any person can recall any politician he does not like, and hold referenda to change the constitution at whim.  Which brings us to the court.  

The Supreme Court of California harkens back to an earlier state when there were only seven justices.   Now, the federal court has nine justices.   But California still has seven.  

These justices are NOT appointed for life.   They are appointed for twelve-year terms.  The governor appoints a justice, who serves if he is confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments.  At the next general election, the justice stands for reconfirmation by the voters to maintain their seat.  I don't think a justice has ever failed to be reconfirmed.   C'mon people.   Maybe there was a justice who didn't deserve it.  Don't neglect the state courts.  The federal government is very limited compared to states.  States have much more contact with its people on a daily basis, There is almost no family law or estate planning law in federal court, and the vast majority of crimes are prosecuted at the state level, so its decisions very well could have more impact on your life than the federal.  If the federal court got it right in appointing justices for life, why do Californians think it is okay to subject judges to the political process?

The Supreme Court holds oral arguments two days a month, and otherwise meets to debate petitions for review and to consider other matters.  The rest of the justices' time is spent writing opinion, or perhaps that is done by legal assistants (of whichever title they have now: I am not sure if they are called law clerks, etc.) The oral argument is held in one of three places, San Francisco ( 4 times, in the main supreme court building on McAllister Street), Los Angeles (4 times, Ronald Reagan State building), or Sacramento (twice).  At their whim, the justices may accept invitations to hold arguments elsewhere.  

So, there are seven justices.    The current Chief Justice is a Hawaiian woman appointed by Schwarzenegger, named Tani Cantil-Sakauye (Kant-eel Saka-u ay).  She sits in the center at all oral arguments.   To her right and left, the associate justices are seated by seniority.  The current justices are:  Kathryn Werdegar, Ming Chin (the one who seems to speak least), Carol Corrigan,  Goodwin Liu (a seemingly intelligent man who speaks fluent English),  Mariano Florence-Cuellar, and Leondra Kruger (who has a most-interesting hairstyle, but actually has obnoxious credentials, Yale Law School, etc.).  Prior Chief Justices have included Ronald M George, Roger Tobriner and Stephen Field.   Only the two most senior justices have been on the court anywhere near 12 years, so it begs the question of why.  

Very few cases must be heard in the Supreme Court.  There are mandatory appeals for all criminals sentenced to death.  Also, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant habeas relief and other writs directing lower judges.  Otherwise, the cases are heard at the court's discretion by petition for review from appellate decisions.  Our state has trial courts in every county, and several districts of appellate courts, not unlike the Circuit Courts of Appeal in the federal system.  Appellate court appeals are mandatory, assuming that the appellant follows all of the procedures and pays all of the necessary fees.  There should be another discussion forthcoming about the state of the courts in California. Appellate time limits are JURISDICTIONAL in this state.  What does that mean?  It means that if an aggrieved party fails to file an appeal within the time limit,  no appeal can be heard, end of story. There is NO room for equitable considerations here. Also remember that the vast majority of actions taken by judge or jury cannot be appealed.  Only mistakes of law can be appealed, or egregious cases where the factfinder abuses his discretion.  One cannot appeal a decision because he does not like the outcome of the trial.  The constitution has a new provision that requires the justices to decide all cases within 90 days of submission or forfeit pay.   This law may be irrational, causing justices to make snap decisions and cause other problems. A thorough review is in order.   It should be frustrating on its face whenever a person thinks he can do the job of another better than the person who holds that job.  

Our court seems pretty reasonable most of the time, though they have picked their battles with the federal judiciary, including famous battles over the scope of the federal arbitration act.  Our state seems committed to consumer and plaintiff protection, so that is a long debate to have.  Also, there is plenty of room to be put off by our legislative choices, what the laws actually say.  My argument is only that, in their role as justices, not as lawmakers, our justices do a fairly good job most of the time. That is not to say I don't have profound disagreements with many of their decisions.