But the most interesting thing about the article's front and center emphasis on the dire consequences of returning to contested judicial elections (as set forth in the Constitution):
While some lawmakers most of them Republicans — would welcome a return to selection by the voters, the legal community sees this outcome as a calamity of the first order. Judges would have to raise money for campaigns, and in the main the funds would come from trial lawyers, business interests, and other parties affected by the rulings the judges make.Did you catch that? Are we to believe that "the legal community" (aka "Elitists in the Legal Community") is/are concerned about a system controlled by "trial lawyers, business interests, and other parties affected by the rulings"? They already control the process. If we returned to the system required by the Constitution, at least people other than the trial lawyers and business interests would have a voice. (Incidentally, don't expect "business interests" clearly to share voters' views on what qualifies someone to be on the court).
By the way that "other parties" is EVERY TENNESSEAN. Judges interpret and apply laws that are on the books. And regrettably, judges also (with the encouragement of the Left) MAKE law that isn't on the books. The decisions of our courts affect EVERY TENNESSEAN, and Tennesseans should not be shut out of the process unless they agree to that process of picking judges. They never have.
Legislators, on the issue of selecting judges: either change the Constitution, or follow it. It's pretty simple.
No comments:
Post a Comment