Pubdate: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 Source: Sun News (Myrtle Beach, SC) Copyright: 2003 Sun Publishing Co. Contact: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/sunnews/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/987 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?136 (Methadone) Note: apparent 150 word limit on LTEs YOUTHFUL ACTING OUT? Rep. Viers' threat underscores weakness of the S.C. judiciary S.C. Rep. Thad Viers, R-Socastee, obviously was upset Friday when he castigated the Center of Hope Clinic for picking "a fight they can't win" in Circuit Court. Center of Hope, a Greenville company, had petitioned Circuit Judge John Breeden of Georgetown to block the Horry County Board of Adjustments and Zoning Appeals from revoking its approval of the center's planned Fantasy Harbour methadone clinic. It was only natural for Viers to express ire that Breeden agreed to hear the petition. Some of his constituents are upset that the zoning board granted the methadone clinic rezoning approval earlier this fall, giving them no chance to object. He led the charge to keep the clinic from opening and was instrumental in "persuading" the zoning board to reconsider its clinic rezoning approval at its regular meeting Monday. In his remarks on the matter Friday, however, Viers went too far, saying "They [Center of Hope officials] forget in this state that I get to vote on the judges." In a letter printed verbatim on today's editorial page, Viers admits making the remark but claims that a reporter from The Sun News quoted him out of context. Readers can judge for themselves whether it is possible to mistake the meaning of the remark. But we don't think so. This was a threat against Breeden. In this state, such threats have to be taken seriously because legislators elect judges. Breeden, to his credit, on Monday enjoined the Horry zoning board from deciding the clinic case until he had a chance to study the legal issues raised in the Center of Hope petition. He could issue a permanent ruling as early as today. If Viers' threat daunts him, Breeden is not showing it. Longtime S.C. legislators and lawyers contend that legislative election of judges works well because it insulates judges from the whims of voters. Legislators, they say, typically don't abuse their power over judges. But the potential for abuse is always there. In America, judges are supposed to be a check on and a balance against the executive and legislative branches of government. That's why, in most states, circuit judges (as we call them here) are elected by the voters or appointed by governors but removable only by the voters. These methods also are subject to abuse. In the end, there is no good way to take human folly out of the judge-selection process. But in the majority of states that pick judges by these methods, at least, legislators lack direct control over the future of judges who thwart their political objectives. That gives judges the latitude they need to interpret the law properly. The case at hand illustrates why this latitude is important. Under S.C. law, zoning board decisions are appealable only to the Circuit Court. Viers' chosen political "solution" to the clinic approval, pressuring the zoning board for reconsideration, was legally dicey from the get-go. Clinic leaders had a right to challenge the board's intended reopening of the case. After all, in gaining earlier approval, they had done everything legally required of them. From our layperson's perspective, Breeden's intervention in the case was appropriate - Viers' attempt to pretend otherwise notwithstanding. Viers, we hope, is guilty only of youthful acting out and won't follow through on his threat when Breeden comes up for re-election. But the fact that he could reminds South Carolinians that their judiciary is only as independent as the General Assembly allows it to be. - --- MAP posted-by: Josh