Thursday, April 16, 2009
Legislature / Woods Ramsey Slams Chief Justice Holder for 'Lobbying' Against Electing Judges
Posted by Jeff Woods on Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:10 PM
"I guess it bothers me now when we have Supreme Court justices going across the state putting politics back into this. I know Janice Holder was down in, I think, Memphis this week saying that we shouldn't be electing judges. I don't know exactly how far that goes and still be ethical, to be honest, for them to be out here speaking to Rotary clubs and Kiwanis clubs lobbying for a bill. That seems to be against their code of ethics. Maybe it's not. But it seems to me that it almost crosses the line. They're saying we don't need to get politics in this, yet what are they doing? Lobbying. Ironic."Update: Holder says, "I appreciate the time and study that Lt. Governor Ramsey has put into addressing the judicial selection issue. Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct specifically permits, and even encourages, judges to speak out on issues involving the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, just as I was doing when I addressed my own Kiwanis Club this week. I look forward to working with Lt. Governor Ramsey and the other legislators in an effort to reach a solution to the judicial selection issue that serves the best interests of the public and the persons who have business in Tennessee's courts." Ramsey, who is running for governor, wants to give governors unfettered power to appoint Supreme Court and appeals court judges when vacancies occur. Holder favors the system we're using now in which a 17-member commission nominates judicial candidates to the governor who then picks one. That commission goes out of business this year unless the legislature decides to save it. More Ramsey:
"I'm not trying to do nothing. I'm trying to do something. I'm very serious about this. I think there are some in the legal community that want nothing to pass because if nothing passes, they win, because if nothing passes they'll blame it on me because nothing passes, even though I have a proposal on the table. But what really happens is this is thrown into the courts, and let me assure you if this gets thrown into the courts, I think I know where our Supreme Court is on this and so politics gets thrown back into it."On giving the governor appointment power, Ramsey said:
"From 1870 to 1970, that's exactly what we did. For people to say the current judicial selection system takes the politics out of the process could not be further from the truth. This was birthed in partisan politics when the Democrat legislature in 1971 didn't want the newly elected Republican governor appointing judges."Here's Jackson Baker's story on Holder's Memphis speech.
Comments (1)
Showing 1-1 of 1
Recently, harsh critics of our judicial selection system of merit selection, performance evaluation and retention elections for Tennessee’s appellate judges have unfairly assailed Supreme Court Justices and other members of the judicial branch for expressing their viewpoints in support of the current system. These critics have suggested that it is inappropriate or even unethical for judges to comment on matters related to the way in which judges are selected. Judges, and particularly Supreme Court Justices, who lead a separate and co-equal branch of government have a responsibility to speak for that branch. There is no legal or ethical prohibition restraining that responsibility, nor should there be.
The architects of our Constitution established three branches of government – the executive, legislative and judicial branch. Each of those branches is given specific responsibilities. The balance of power between those three branches has led to the world’s most successful model of self-government. When deciding cases, all judges are sworn to do so in a fair and impartial manner. In addition to the role of judge or impartial referee, justices of the Supreme Court, particularly the Chief Justice, as the head of the co-equal judicial branch, have a responsibility to advocate for measures which lead to the most effective administration of justice.
Suppose, for example, the Governor was to decide that he believes that the terms of state senators should be shortened from four years to two years. The Speaker of the Senate would be expected to speak to the merits of that proposal. Indeed, we would expect that the speaker would talk with the media and colleagues and try to persuade them to his viewpoint. No one would find this inappropriate or label it as unethical lobbying. The Justices of the Supreme Court and the judges of the other courts are doing no less than fulfilling their responsibilities as members of a co-equal branch of government when they advocate for their viewpoint on judicial selection.
The Code of Judicial Conduct adopted in virtually every jurisdiction in this country says that each judge has an affirmative responsibility to diligently discharge their administrative responsibilities. Judges are ethically permitted to speak concerning the administration of justice.
The Tennessee Bar Association, representing the views of more than 80% of its members, and the unanimous view of its Board of Governors, continues to advocate for a continuation of a system for merit selection, performance evaluation and retention elections for Tennessee’s appellate judges. This viewpoint has achieved widespread support among the business and civic community. Attacks upon judges for sharing their views are terribly misplaced in our democracy.
George T. Lewis
Tennessee Bar Association, President
like
dislike
