Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Legislature / Politics / Woods Conservatives Kick Off Push to Take Over Tennessee Judiciary
Posted by Jeff Woods on Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:42 AM
"The day when we ignore the constitution is the day we really spit in the eye of our citizens and we say to them, 'You're no longer necessary. You gave us the power on the front end and now we're going to ignore the plain language of the document that you've given us.' "We have a judiciary that's not responsive to the citizens. ... If we have no accountability at all for the judiciary, then the citizens have no control whatever over their constitution."More commentary: Sen. Tim Barnes, D-Clarksville: "I think certainly we agree that we should not politicize our judiciary, that it is good to have an independent judiciary. What this does is it puts it in the realm of partisan politics." Sen. Thelma Harper, D-Nashville: "Any kook who can get their name on the ballot and can run for judge and get a majority vote, they will be deciding the issues of life. The process that we have is not broken. This is all about control. It's not about what the constitution says or what the constitution does. It's all about control. It is just the wrong thing to do." Sen. Ophelia Ford, D-Memphis: "This will literally make it impossible for a black judge in the state of Tennessee to win."
Comments (21)
Showing 1-21 of 21
Popular election of judges is one of the worst ideas. It allows election of people not qualified to be judges and intimidates judges into making decisions that are based more on the wants and philosophies of the electorate, rather than the law. Another reason to believe that this state is going backwards rather than forwards.
like
dislike
Thanks, Ophelia Ford, for thinking of the greater good and not being a blatant racist.
Another brilliant TN GOP idea destined to ensure Tennessee's permanent place at the bottom of every national ranking.
"Proponents say the commission has given Tennessee one of the most professional judiciaries in the nation. Conservatives say it gives too many seats to liberals and trial lawyers. They want to return the state to contested popular elections of all judges. They'd like to see home schoolers, bible school teachers and gun dealers deciding the meaning of our constitution."
Since there aren't any liberals or trial lawyers on earth who are physically capable of being smarter than home schoolers, bible school teachers and gun dealers, it can't be anything other than net plus.
"Since there aren't any liberals or trial lawyers on earth who are physically capable of being smarter than home schoolers, bible school teachers and gun dealers, it can't be anything other than net plus."
Aside from your opinion Gilbert, which you're entitled to, I think the point is that the Tennessee Republicans would like to give people who aren't trained in the law the chance to become judges. Ramsey and other leaders obviously don't think very much of the conservative lawyers in Tennessee, or perhaps there aren't many. So they think it's wise to give people who have no background in the law, but many opinions based on their own background or faith, the opportunity to become judges. What's next, a legal system built on the book of Leviticus, where we chop off people's hands for theft and stone people for talking back to their parents?
There may be persuasive arguments against having an elected judiciary. Those who hold them are invited to make their case to the legislature and the people.
But we have this pesky thing in Tennessee called a "State Constitution." Perhaps you've heard of it?
Turns out, it says that "The Supreme Court judges shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state."
The phrase “shall be elected by the qualified voters” appears 5 times in Tennessee’s Constitution.
If a retention vote is constitutional for judges (and takes money and politics out of the equation), why don't we just have a retention vote for the Governor and members of the state legislature?
If you don't like open contested elections for judges, then the process to amend the constitution is clearly spelled out - and has been used before.
But as long as we have a state constitution, perhaps we ought to abide by it? I realize this is a radical concept.
Rob, that's not the point. I didn't say it wasn't going to happen nor did I say it was unconstitutional. I said elected judges is a bad idea, regardless of whose idea it originally was, and the Tennesseans who wrote this into the Constitution, well, I don't know what to think of them. I guess they couldn't foresee the eventuality of judges having opinions based on their faith, or based on receiving money from industry, or because they were scared of losing reelection, than adherence to the constitution of this state. You may not like the way we federally pick judges. You may think our federal judiciary is too liberal (although their not). At least the large percentage of them are qualified, went to law school, worked as lawyers and judges, etc. That isn't always the case with elected judges. It's still a bad idea.
This article should be titled "Democrats Struggle to Maintain Stranglehold on Judiciary".
Tennessee citizens elect hundreds of judges every year.
Name the judges who have been elected as a result of the undue influence of lobbyists.
If you feel incompetent to vote on judges, don't vote.
I trust the people of Tennessee considerably more than I trust a few hand-picked groups of trial lawyers who, by a 2/3 margin, submit the names of Democratic candidates to the Governor.
The travesty here isn't that the people may elect a bad judge, it's that they are completely disenfranchised from electing any appellate judges and Tn Supreme Ct justices whatsoever.
And the "retention election" process is something more akin to elections in Iran or Venezuela.
"I think the point is that the Tennessee Republicans would like to give people who aren't trained in the law the chance to become judges. Ramsey and other leaders obviously don't think very much of the conservative lawyers in Tennessee, or perhaps there aren't many. So they think it's wise to give people who have no background in the law, but many opinions based on their own background or faith, the opportunity to become judges. What's next, a legal system built on the book of Leviticus, where we chop off people's hands for theft and stone people for talking back to their parents?"
Nonsense.
Liberal Democrats love judges who subsitute their own personal preferences/ideas/values for the written law - just as long as those judges happen to be unaccountable liberal elites who think just like they do.
Training in "the law" hasn't restrained activist judges sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court on down from doing exactly that for a very long time.
"I trust the people of Tennessee considerably more than I trust a few hand-picked groups of trial lawyers who, by a 2/3 margin, submit the names of Democratic candidates to the Governor."
Whatever, but there was a reason the founders saw an independent judiciary as a good thing, having judges that didn't have to worry about the whims of the voters.
"Liberal Democrats love judges who subsitute their own personal preferences/ideas/values for the written law - just as long as those judges happen to be unaccountable liberal elites who think just like they do.
Gilbert, you're amusing. And conservatives don't do this, do they (sarcasm intended)? I could substitute conservative in all the places you put in liberal and it would be just as true. It's all about interpretation and conservatives, Scalia and Thomas included, routinely substitute their personal preferences. But I can live with that because they are trained lawyers, where in Tennessee you could have some uneducated, yet charismatic hillbilly get elected.
" I could substitute conservative in all the places you put in liberal and it would be just as true"
No - it wouldn't be.
The truth is this wouldn't even be an issue had the Supreme Court not stuck down abortion laws in Tennessee.
This has nothing to do with the intelligence of the voter. This is an attempt to exploit the naiveté of the voter, and that is something totally different altogether. Both parties are guilty of it. The average Tennessean couldn't tell you who their state senator or representative is, let alone name a state appellate-level judge. Add the right kind of political ads into the mix and you're sure to get votes in your favor. You'll see a slew of commercials about someone being a "strict constructionist" or an "activist judge," but for all you know the "best" person could be operating a meth lab behind closed doors. The election situation is not unique with judges, either. The same issue has been going on for years with elected superintendents of schools -- the biggest gig around in many counties. That's coming back up, too.
There is also the issue of money. The 2008 Presidential election is a classic example of how campaign finance has gotten out of control. Candidates, both in the primary and the general elections, were more concerned about running around the country raising money than about the people they were elected to represent. If you allow elected judges, they'll wind up doing the same thing. They won't have much of a choice. You can forget about justice during an election year -- the judge will be on the other side of the state raising money!
"No - it wouldn't be."
That's your argument? OK then, your logic has won me over.
"Whatever, but there was a reason the founders saw an independent judiciary as a good thing, having judges that didn't have to worry about the whims of the voters."
The founders of the State of Tennessee envisioned that we elect judges - not have special lawyer interest groups filter candidates that it can't trust us to pick.
If the founders wanted an independent judiciary, why would they favor one that was selected in part by the legislative branch and in part by the executive branch?
The founders wanted elected judges.
That is why the Tn Constitution repeatedly refers to elections for judges.
That is why the citizens of Tn elected these appellate judges and Tn Supreme Court justices for 150 years.
That process worked well until a Democratic General Assembly corrupted the election proces over a series of statutory changes which were designed to maintain Democratic control of the judicial selection process.
Can anyone name the Tn Supreme Court justices who were elected by the people prior to 1970 in improperly influenced elections?
The founders of our state wanted the citizens to elect judges - not have a few groups of ambulance-chasers select the judiciary.
I am a citizen, not a serf.
mangrovemama2002, read what I said more carefully. I meant the founders of this country. They knew the consequences of having a judiciary controlled by the whims of voters who mostly are ignorant of the law. They knew what could happen when the judiciary is not separate from the election process. The founders of this state weren't nearly as enlightened as the nation's founders. ELECTED JUDGES IS A TERRIBLE IDEA. I don't care if it's in the TN, and other states, constitution. It leads to bad law and it can lead to corruption.
chris1974
I understand that you don't care if the election of judges is required in the Tn Constitution.
I do care.
But none of that matters, because it is in the Tn Constitution.
The election of any officials can lead to corruption, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the right to vote on them.
What is so special about the Tn Bar Assn, Tn Trial Lawyers Assn, Tn Criminal Defense Lawyers Assn and the Tn DA's Assn that they should have a substantial influence over the selection of our judges with no accountability to voters whatsoever?
If we are going to pick who gets to select the slate of candidates for the Governor, I would be content with having the NRA and the Federalist Society decide, but the process is still not democratic or what the drafters of the Tn Constitution envisioned.
If you think electing judges is a bad idea, I assume that you don't vote on the contested judgeships when you go to the ballot box.
I vote for judges in both parties after doing due diligence on them, the same way I do with other elected offices.
It's a "We the people" thing, and, like riding a Harley, if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.
"That's your argument? OK then, your logic has won me over."
Your mistake is assuming that I amy trying to convince you of something.
"Whatever, but there was a reason the founders saw an independent judiciary as a good thing,"
In point of fact, the entire federal court system other than the U.S, Supreme Court was created by Congress via powers delegated to it by Article III Section 1. of the Constitution. Anything created by Congress is subject to the power of Congress.
The Congress could, by simple majority vote, abolish the entire federal court system tomorrow if it chose to do so. Or it could place any sort of restictions on it that chose to enact. In short the federal courts are not in any way "independent" from being subject to the whims of the legislative branch of government.
And even the Supreme Court is not entirely independent either. Via powers delegated to it by Article III Section 2. of the Constitution, Congress can, by simple majority vote, limit the appellate jurisdicition of the Supreme Court in any case not involving "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls" or any case where a State shall be a party.
In other words, except for certain types of cases, Congress can tell the Supreme Court to butt out - that it is not allowed to hear some particular case at all - period.
Now Congress hasn't exercised this power in about 100 years but it certainly has it.
The judiciary isn't anywhere near as "independent" as a lot of people think it is.
...Since there aren't any liberals or trial lawyers on earth who are physically capable of being smarter than home schoolers, bible school teachers and gun dealers, it can't be anything other than net plus...
Yes, self-isolation and immersion into mythological mindsets greatly increase one's ability to deal with a diverse and ever-changing world run by manipulative oligarchs who encourage the denial of the uneducated and foster the zealotry in those that can not understand or profit from the propagation of ignorance.
