Judges campaigning against judges campaigning

Irony abounds in this story from yesterday's edition of the Nashville Business Journal where we learn of public pronouncements by one of our newest Supreme Court Justices, Bill Koch. This is consistent with reports of the possibly unethical (certainly not "beyond reproach") recent political advocacy of Tennessee's Supreme Court Justices and intermediate appellate judges on the issue of how they obtain and retain their lucrative, secure and powerful jobs.

Koch (plus other judges and justices) are making the rounds and staking out their political and legal view that the current system is (a) preferred policy and (b) inconsistent with our constitution's requirement of contested elections.

Justice William Koch told the Tennessee Business Roundtable that while the system, also known as “The Tennessee Plan,” is imperfect and may need some tinkering, it is a better solution than statewide elections for judges — an idea some are promoting.

Incidentally, those of us who "are promoting . . . statewide elections for judges" didn't come up with this idea out of nowhere . . . we're merely saying that the text of the Constitution matters. The article's writer continues:

The current merit selection process, by which a selection panel sends a list of three candidates to the governor and he selects one, expires June 30. Lawmakers must reapprove it or come up with a different solution.

Actually, this isn't correct. It's the commissions that will expire, and lawmakers do not have to "come up with a different solution" for us to end the system of unelected and unaccountable commissions selecting our judges for us. And the term "merit selection" ought to be in quotation marks.

The writer continues:

Koch told the business leaders he is concerned about the effect that campaign money would have on judges’ impartiality, were the state to require judges to run for election.

When someone preaches to you about "removing the politics from the process" you can bet it is your "politics" they are wanting to exclude.

I hate to say it, but all this lofty hand-wringing is annoying, especially coming from people with such an obvious personal interest in the outcome. The only person who can control a judge's "impartiality" is that judge. And now that we know Koch & Co's partialities on the Tennessee Constitution and judicial selection, what about other issues?