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.