FOR YEARS NOW, the business community and its political supporters have been saying that South Carolina was one of the nation’s top “judicial hellholes” because our lawsuit rules were stacked against innocent businesses and individuals; and we have tended to agree.

But Gov. Mark Sanford could barely finish signing the new law that makes the major changes business leaders sought before they were announcing a plan that sounded uncomfortably close to an implicit threat to our state’s judges.

Officials with the S.C. Chamber of Commerce, the state chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business and South Carolinians for Tort Reform all said at the signing ceremony that they would monitor how judges apply the new law and might get involved in the Legislature’s judicial selections when judges make decisions they don’t consider “balanced.” The head of South Carolinians for Tort Reform said supporters were following the pattern established in other states: First change the laws, then work to get “good” judges.

Most of the other comments sounded more reasonable. And all three groups were careful with their words, saying they wanted not judges who would rule their way, but simply “fair” and “balanced” judges.

But the cumulative effect of the three groups all switching the conversation to a “scrutinize the judges” agenda, at the very moment when their considerable political clout was so vividly displayed, is disturbing. “Fairness” has historically been code for “side with us” when groups have wanted to pack the bench with like-minded judges. So these latest comments could be read as an attempt to intimidate judges into ruling the “pro-business” way even when the facts don’t justify it.

As House Speaker Pro Tem Doug Smith was quick to note, business leaders weren’t complaining about “judicial activism” or the lack of “balance” when the state Supreme Court issued a ruling earlier this year that severely limited venue shopping — one of their key legislative goals. “I look forward to (business lobbyists) bringing us a single example of a judge making a law,” he told The Spartanburg Herald-Journal.

So do we.

There’s a widespread misconception about the role of the judiciary. When a judge or a court makes a ruling we don’t like, we tend to get upset with the judges, rather than considering whether they had any options. We forget that, unlike legislators, governors and presidents, judges aren’t supposed to consider the politics or even their own personal opinions on the cases before them. This is particularly true with the trial court judges who will apply the new lawsuit rules in actual cases.

Our profession has played a role in fostering this view, by focusing almost exclusively on the effect of court rulings and paying little attention to the reasoning behind them. But if you take the time to review the legal basis of court rulings, you’ll nearly always find that either the facts of the case or the law itself left judges no alternative but to rule as they did — even if they personally would have preferred to do otherwise.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with monitoring the judiciary to make sure judges are fair and impartial; indeed, that’s healthy for the system. But legislative leaders need to make it clear that they will not be party to any effort to unseat judges who make legally correct rulings that displease powerful interests. If they don’t, our judges could feel intimidated into playing politics from the bench, whether that was the goal or not.