Sanford: Court's ties to lawmakers a 'tough spot'

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is questioning whether his own state Supreme Court's justices can be fair as the high court readies for a hearing Wednesday on his efforts to block federal stimulus money for schools.

Sanford, dealt a legal blow Monday by a federal judge's ruling on two stimulus cases, said he believes he'll lose his case in state court and in part blamed a system that requires justices to be appointed by lawmakers and to lobby legislators for funding.

"I think even where the court case ends up underscores in essence good people trapped in a horrible system," Sanford said Monday.

"We have in this case a Supreme Court that is picked by the General Assembly. They regularly lobby the General Assembly for funding and other things," Sanford said. "You could have five Solomons, but at the end of the day if you had to go to another group to get funded and to give you the goal posts, if you will, for your playing field it would be a very, very tough spot in which to operate."

He backpedaled a step when asked if he was saying the court couldn't rule on the merits of the case or the deck was stacked against him. "I'm not saying that. That's why I'm going to go ahead and proceed with the case," he said.

State Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Toal declined Tuesday to respond to Sanford's critique of the system she runs. Sanford didn't mention it, but the Legislature called for the court system to get $4 million from the bailout money.

Robert Wilcox, a University of South Carolina School of Law legal ethics expert, doubts there are conflicts or a biased court awaiting Sanford. "One thing you especially see in cases like this is all the parties rise above that type of concern," particularly on such a serious constitutional issue.

And Sanford's questions about the court's "tough spot" come despite rulings the past six years of Sanford's two-term tenure favoring his positions. When he took office, he won a lawsuit questioning whether he could serve in that office while holding an Air Force Reserve commission. Since then, the court has repeatedly ruled against the Legislature for rolling too many issues into bills, an argument Sanford has pushed regularly.

Overall, his record with the court is far better than his predecessor, Democrat Gov. Jim Hodges, who sued to assert his power to fire a board member and won. Hodges lost when the attorney general sued after he tried to direct how money in the budget was spent, a role the state leaves to the Legislature.

"On one occasion, I found them brilliant; on another I thought they fell short of the mark," Hodges said. But he didn't harbor doubts about the court being impartial. "I think they do a pretty good job of trying to decide cases on their merits."

The case Hodges lost is cited repeatedly in the new Sanford lawsuits as demonstrating the power the Legislature has to write a budget and the governor's limited role in executing that law. Once "the Legislature makes a special appropriation, it's very difficult for a governor not to abide by it," Hodges said. "I would be surprised if he prevailed on it."

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.