Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Legislature / Woods Sen. Dewayne Bunch Strikes New Blow Against Independent Judiciary
Posted by Jeff Woods on Wed, May 13, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Today, Bunch persuaded the Senate Government Operations Committee not to extend the life of the council, meaning it goes into an automatic one-year wind-down period. At first, he protested the council is too costly. Informed that the cost is a mere $2,000 a year, Bunch then admitted he sees the council as a haughty group. He actually sits on the council. Apparently, he tried to infiltrate it to change its ways but then decided just to kill it. Bunch said:
"Why should certain select people in our state have enhanced status above other citizens? Why should we do that? Why should one person's opinion mean more than a person back in my district or a person in your district? No one person's opinion should be enhanced over another's."
Comments (7)
Showing 1-7 of 7
like
dislike
If you've ever seen DeeWayne in action, he's truly frightening. A true believer in the gospel laid down by the far right. The judicial council's role in legislation is purely advisory; the legislature doesn't have to follow its recommendations. But he doesn't even want their advice. Part of his agenda to silence all critics.
What kind of mother would look at her newborn and name it Dewayne Bunch? He's probably still trying to overcome such a dorky name.
I love it. A person who actually supports democratic elections here being called a kook.
Woods: Why don't you look into why we have trial judges (right here in Nashville) doing "fund raisers" after their election to office as your example of an, "independent judiciary?" What fine work.... that Judicial Council aye?
Need any traffic tickets fixed?
Thanks Dewayne Bunch. You are the coolest.
Guess what, Tony: we have free and contested elections for trial judges already. Always have. Always will.
Since you don't mention any wrongdoing by the APPELLATE judges, who are selected and retained by the system that DeeWayne wants to abolish, your argument is, uh, kooky.
Actually there are two problems. What we have is money & peddled influence addled Trial Court Judicial election process (i.e. see recent Phil Williams investigative reports), and a peddled influence addled Appellate Judicial Selection Commission Retention-election process.[i.e., check out that groups's political contribution reports]
If I have to stomach money and influence peddling in the Judiciary, I suppose I prefer to take my chances with and trust the voters of the State, under the Constitution, over a blind pledge of fealty to an unconstrained Aristocracy of Attorneys to protect my freedom with their installation of virtually incontestable incumbents to entire branch of government.
Meanwhile thanks again to Dewayne Bunch, he has the spine to place his name on what he believes unlike Mr. Anonymous here.
