An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings
Circling Sharks
Judge selection debate flares in Tennessee
Tennessee’s judicial system is coming under its sharpest attack in a generation, as groups of lawmakers and activists are trying to overturn the state’s process for selecting judges.
That sentence makes it sound like there is some backroom dealings going on with a group of ‘extremists’.
After a string of controversial decisions, Gov. Phil Bredesen and state legislators are divided over whether to stick with the state’s method of appointing higher court judges. That has opened the door to a constitutional amendment, and possibly direct elections to the state’s highest courts.
At stake is the future of Tennessee’s courts.
It’s not just the courts that are at stake. It’s the decisions those courts make. From recent court decisions across the country, I’m very dubious about court appointees.
“We have the rule of lawyers,” said Ned Williams, a Brentwood adoption attorney and an organizer with the Justice Reform Coalition, a state group that has been lobbying to ditch the current system. “That’s not representative of the general public.”
If anyone doesn’t believe that lawyers, like everyone else these days, have a political agenda, then they’ve evidently been hiding in a cave, under a rock, with their head stuck in the sand.
“I think we still need to have a group that is unbiased and nonpartisan who’s looking at this and saying here are the qualifications that we need for our jurists,” said Rep. Jon Lundberg, an East Tennessee Republican who has sponsored legislation keeping the commission.
See above comment. Head….sand.
But others, including Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, say the issue needs to be put before voters. They believe that the system violates sections of the state constitution that call for elections to the judiciary, and that it has stood only because judges, who favor the system, have looked the other way.
“This is birthed in partisan politics,” Ramsey said. “I see no reason why 17 people need to decide who our next Supreme Court justice is going to be.”
Article IV, Sec 3 (TN Constitution): The Judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the qualified voters of the State. The Legislature shall have power to prescribe such rules as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of section two of this article. Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be thirty-five years of age, and shall before his election have been a resident of the State for five years. His term of service shall be eight years.
Hey! I’m a qualified voter, aren’t I? Sure hope so, because I’ve been voting since I got my voter’s registration card. Why can’t I have a voice in the state Supremes?
“We have had a judicial branch which has been very well-regarded,” said Buck Lewis, Tennessee Bar Association president. “We have very little campaign spending, and people are able to get selected on their merits, not because of their political connections, because of the selection commissions.”
We are too stupid to realize this is a pile of male bovine excrement. Of course there isn’t as much campaigning, and spending money. They have fewer people to impress. When you only have to get 17 people on your side, it’s going to be a LOT cheaper than if you want an entire state to vote for you.
Others would give lawmakers more discretion over the commissions’ membership to reduce the power of lawyers groups. Still others, including Ramsey, favor wholesale reform that would give the governor discretion to choose anyone he wants for the bench, without input from lawyers.
I don’t see much difference in this and what we have now. If you have an ubber liberal, or conservative, governor, you’re going to have ubber liberal, or conservative, judges selected by the governor.
And a fourth group leans in favor of making all judgeships, from the state Supreme Court on down, elected positions chosen directly by the voters.
I would hope that if this comes back to the people, the voters will be a whole lot more informed than they have shown to be in recent elections. 
Bredesen, a supporter of the selection system, also opened it to attack by criticizing the commission in 2006 for not doing enough to promote diversity on the bench. Reform advocates have used his complaints as evidence that the commissions have too much power.
As Democrats go, he could be much worse. With some serious exceptions, he’s not so bad. Those who complain about ‘diversity’ don’t seem to realize that statue of Justice blind folded is suppose to mean justice is color blind. All people should be treated the same under the current laws. So, why does it matter what is the color of the person sitting on the bench?
Under the state’s first constitution, judges were chosen by the state legislature, but in the 1850s, the constitution was amended to make all judgeships elected positions, from the lowest local courts to the Supreme Court.
That amendment has stood ever since, but its enactment has changed. In 1971, the state adopted what is now called the “Tennessee Plan,” a system by which the state’s 24 appeals court judges are appointed by the governor. The system was extended in 1994 to include its five Supreme Court justices.
Am I to understand that the state’s Constitution is being violated? Why am I not surprised? Those Constitutions have become nothing more than toilet paper in the last 40 or 50 years. No one seems to read them anymore, and if they do bother to take the time, they don’t give a flip.
After their appointment, judges must run once every eight years in what are called retention elections. In these retention elections, voters are asked only if they want to keep a judge on the bench or throw the judge off. No other candidates appear on the ballot.
So voters are asked to vote to retain a judge, that was appointed, and if they say no, then another one is appointed, who may, or may not, be just the same as the one they said no to? Odds are, as was in the case of a vote I was asked to make, I had never heard of the person, so I didn’t vote at all on him/her. Left it blank, which I really hate doing!
Only one judge has been removed through a retention election in the nearly 40 years since they were established. That was Justice Penny White, who was booted from the bench after a campaign that focused on her death penalty decisions.
One of the issues that comes to mind is the death penalty in selecting judges. After reading some about White, I have to say, it would have been wise to boot the other five judges off the state Supreme Court as well. If the repeated rape and stabbing of a 78 year old woman isn’t a reason for the death penalty, I don’t know what is. Many believe the death penalty is “unconstitutional”. I don’t happen to be one of them.
As it stands, the House is set to debate three bills in coming weeks that will extend the judicial commissions. Legislation on the issue is also moving in the Senate, where Ramsey is trying to build support for a plan that would extend the commission long enough to let voters weigh a constitutional amendment that permanently settles the issue.
Wouldn’t it be nice if The Tennessean actually stated the bills #’s, and their titles? Heaven forbid we should actually be able to investigate for ourselves.
Supporters of judicial reform are pushing hard to bring about change before their window of opportunity closes. They say they face stiff odds.
Why should it be so difficult to enforce the Constitution of the State of Tennessee? If there are ‘stiff odds’, then it could only be from those who are using Constitutions (state and national) as toilet paper.
Obviously, I’m no lawyer. I don’t even play one on TV. I don’t have enough shark DNA I suppose. I do however have a strong sense of what is right and wrong, and I am quite supportive of Constitutions. There was a darn good reason why the Founding Fathers (state and national) didn’t want so much power concentrated in one body of government.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
