Yesterday I noted that the Supreme Court would likely try to deal quickly with the appeal on the building case, as Schwarzenegger was practically begging for action.  If the 6th district’s stay isn’t overturned shortly, the ball will be in Jerry Brown’s court.  Apparently, Arnold isn’t too down with that, as well, Jerry Brown seemingly opposes the sale.

One problem: the Supreme Court is housed in one of those buildings, and so they have an interest in the litigation.  And under the ethics guidelines, that means that they should recuse themselves from the litigation.  They’ve now done that:

All seven state Supreme Court justices have removed themselves from participation in a lawsuit seeking to block the sale of 11 state buildings. They did not offer a formal reason, but it is safe to assume they did so because their court is housed in the San Francisco Civic Center Complex, one of the properties up for sale.

Because the Supreme Court justices recused themselves, the state will call upon seven appellate court judges to serve in their place, according to Judicial Council spokeswoman Lynn Holton. To select them, the Supreme Court will go down an alphabetical list of judges. That could happen as soon as this week.(SacBee)

Of course, because the 1st and 3rd districts are also housed in the buildings, the pool of judges is a bit thinner than otherwise would be the case.  With all this wrangling, Arnold is rapidly running out of time for his little corporate endeavor here.

Also in that SacBee article was the fact that Schwarzenegger has just named the San Francisco Civic Center the “Ron George Civic Center.”  You’d think that he would confer with the city, but no dice. The whole complex, mind you, not just one building. But lest you be worried, the deal requires the new owners to retain the names of all of the facilities.

The twittersphere is abuzz with the news that California Supreme Court Justice Ron George will step down at the end of his term on January 2 of 2011.  The author of the landmark In re Marriage Cases, that struck down Prop 22’s ban of same-sex marriage and Strauss v Horton, which upheld Prop 8, was always somethiing of a riddle.  Socially moderate, but always something of a friend to corporations, George wrote many of the big decisions over the last 14 years.

Now, the process for his replacement is kind of weird.  It’s codified in Article 6, Section 16 of the California Constitution, but here’s the short version

1. If a justice wants to run again, he or she has to file by August 16 in the year prior to their term’s expiration. If they file, they just appear as a Yes/No question on the ballot.
2. If they do not file, the Governor appoints a nominee by September 16. Only this candidate can appear on the ballot.
3. If that candidate does not win the Yes/No election, the Governor appoints a judge that will serve until the next general election (subject to Confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments)

Now, it is unlikely that any judge Arnold appoints would be that controversial. At this point, the last thing he wants out of a judge is controversy, what with the AB32 repeal also appearing on the ballot.  Furthermore, Arnold doesn’t seem to have much love for either candidate for governor, so he wouldn’t really like to see them get the appointment gift-wrapped on the date of their inauguration.

It’s not clear who exactly would get to appoint the nominee if the election goes “No.” But, again, odds are pretty stacked against that scenario.

As for George, well, he made a mistake on Strauss v Horton, and what would have been his crowning legacy, marriage equality, will be left to either the electorate or some other jurist. In the end, he’ll go down as a pretty decent justice who fit his time, and fit the governor (Wilson) who appointed him. The appointment makes it clear just how important it is that we take back the governor’s seat.

UPDATE by Robert: Here’s Ron George’s statement on his retirement.

Jon Fleischman, at his right-wing blog, sent out a screed yesterday morning against Chief Justice Ronald M. George.  Not all that surprising really, given that George has been known to not always toe the Republican line. Usually? Yes. Complete Fealty? No.

But, when Fleischman saw George’s name on Hillary Clinton’s financial records at over $2300 to her presidential campaign, it was a bridge too far. He breathlessly fired off a blog post citing the California Code of Judicial Ethics’s restrictions on total giving to a candidate and attempted to shame Governors Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian for appointing George. It was all very dramatic. Fleischman had George busted. It was all listed there on the FEC report: George, Ronald State of California/Chief Justice.

Now I am not an expert in this “Code” and whether there are consequences for violations of it — nor do I know if the Supreme Court exempts themselves from these standards they adopt for all judges, or if they are supposed to live by its rules as well.

It seems to me that Ron George owes a public explanation for such an egregious violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.  Especially given that the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court should be setting an example for all of our state’s judges to follow.

In the meantime, if I am Pete Wilson or George Deukmejian, I might be particularly embarrassed that my appointee was so committed to trying to elect a liberal to be President of the United States. (FlashReport)

But, whoops, turns out that it was a different Ronald George.  Apparently, there is another Ronald George in San Francisco who is a big Hillary Clinton fan. And when Clinton’s people looked up who he was, Google turned up the Chief Justice.  Under federal law, full accuracy isn’t required, only “best efforts.”

It is an understandable mistake to make, after all it did come from the FEC reports. But had he done a little more investigation, the charge would have crumbled.  John Myers re-tweeted a tweet that the address that the Ronald George of the FEC report is actually “Ronald F. George.”  But before attacking the Chief Justice, perhaps Fleischman should have done a white pages lookup of the address, or you know, contacted his office about the charge.

Fleischman later posted about the Chief Justice’s response stating that he had never donated to Clinton, and then later an explanation post from a tipster about the “best efforts” rules.

To date, no post apologizing for the full-throated attacks has been posted on the FlashReport.

The Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court can see the mess in front of his face just as everybody else can:

California Chief Justice Ronald M. George, in a speech prepared for the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, said the ease by which Californians can pass new laws at the ballot box has “rendered our state government dysfunctional.”

George noted that in November, voters passed initiatives to regulate the confinement of fowl in coops and passed Proposition 8, which overturned part of a California Supreme Court ruling that gave gays and lesbians the right to marry.

“Chickens gained valuable rights in California on the same day that gay men and lesbians lost them,” George said.

He focuses on the initiative system, perhaps because it pushed him from a champion of civil rights, in the original marriage decision, to a judge who stood in the way of fundamental rights.  You can’t blame him for singling the initiative process out, and it’s hard to argue that the initiative system has ever lived up to the dreams that Hiram Johnson had for it.  But, as we know, there’s far more wrong with the system than just the initiative process.