Ron Ramsey is a fine human being with so many good ideas for making Tennessee a better place. If he keeps up at his current pace, however, he may not even make it to the August 2008 Republican Primary, let alone actually win it. . . . Now, he says he doesn't want to elect judges in this State, a promise which he has not only broken to the voters, but a stance which can be seen to violate his very oath of office.One thing that is important for David to know is that Ramsey's purported proposal (I haven't had the privilege of seeing a copy of it yet) would include reviving a previous statute that allows for the governor to make interim appointments to the courts. So, it would be constitutional until at least the next biennial election. At that time, according to those who speculate that the sky will fall if the judicial commissions sunset, the interim judges would simply face retention referenda to keep their seats. But, as reflected in the assertions of one commenter, Ramsey's plan is getting a cool reception from interest groups vehemently opposed to judicial elections: the Lawyer's Lobby.
First, the anonymous commenter claims that the Constitution only addresses the selection of the Supreme Court and also warns of how corrupt it is to elect judges.
Regarding which judges must be elected, one section of the Constitution addresses the "Supreme Court" and the next section addresses "Inferior Courts" . . . and they all are to be "elected." And, as David points out the same term is used for the governor and members of the legislature. Surely you can't "interpret" the word "election" to mean anything other than "contested election" when applied to legislators?
Regarding corruption and judicial elections, I'm eager to hear "anonymous" explain how having an unaccountable, secret commission appoint judges is less susceptible to corruption and abuse than is letting people pick the candidates. Rule of Lawyers. That sounds like a swell idea . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment