The fight over judicial selection -- Commercial Appeal

The Commercial Appeal's analysis (here) of the battle in Tennessee over judicial selection:

The internecine fights were most evident on the Republican side, over how judges of the Tennessee Supreme Court are selected.

It broke into open warfare two weeks ago when conservatives mutinied against a compromise drafted by GOP colleagues that would maintain for another two years Tennessee's merit-selection, retention-election system for choosing Supreme Court justices and other appellate judges.

The issue boils down to whether Tennessee's top judges should be elected or appointed. It has huge ramifications for the judicial branch and for all Tennesseans.

. . . .

But it became apparent that compromise on judicial selection was likely. Most Democrats and moderate Republicans basically favored retaining the current system, but neither side had the votes to do everything it wanted.

Pushing back against the Bar

A final WSJ report on this phase of the debate over who will pick Tennessee's appellate judges. Tennessee Bar Fight - WSJ.com From the article:

Tennessee is moving the dial on how it chooses judges, changing parts of the so-called merit selection method that has governed the state for decades. Under a new plan approved by the legislature on Friday, the lawyers who have dominated judicial selection are getting put back in their place.

Wait'll next year . . .

The State Senate voted today (here) to concur with the House's amendments to SB1573 (here), that is, a majority of Senators voted against a governor's override provision as part of the changes to Tennessee's commission-based system of judicial selection.

It was quick and without fanfare, and eight Republican senators joined the Democrats to pass the version of the bill preferred by the Lawyers' Lobby.

Until proponents of commission-based selection of judges change the Constitution to accommodate their preferred system, this issue will not go away; so look for a battle when the Judicial Commissions come up for review again in two years.

And look for the issue to come up in primaries and general elections in 2010. ;)

Voting Aye: (* - Republican; ** - Republican running for governor)
Ramsey**
Barnes
Berke
Burks
Faulk*
Finney
Ford
Gresham*
Harper
Haynes
Henry
Herron
Jackson
Ketron*
Kyle
Marrero
Overbey*
Stewart
Tracy*
Woodson*
Yager*


Voting No:
Beavers*
Bunch*
Burchett*
Crowe*
Johnson*
McNally*
Norris*
Southerland*
Stanley*
Watson*


Absent/Not Voting:
Black*
Tate

From the "Bad Facts Make Bad Law" Dept.

From what I knew about the situation, I was inclined to think that the correct conclusion in the WV refuse-to-recuse case (here) was obvious . . . until I read the facts and until I thought about the proper role of the Supreme Court in establishing precedent on a given issue. Proponents of Tennessee's system of picking judges by unaccountable commissions have been eager to point to WV as Exhibit A of "cash in the courts" or as the norm in states where supreme court justices are elected; that's demagoguery.

Read the Supreme Court's Caperton v. Massey slip opinion for yourself (here), especially Chief Justice Roberts' dissent, and see if you don't agree that "bad facts make bad law."

Making Tennessee sausage

It has been interesting to read some of the reports from Liberal Bloggers' day at the Hill (here and here) And one comment from Ilissa Gold jumped out at me about some of the personalities involved: (Post Politics):

"Rep. Hank Fincher drew applause from the bloggers when he expressed his frustration with always compromising with the Republicans. He analogized it by saying that if they’re determined to drive the bus into a ditch, to let them and stop grabbing the steering wheel. I liked that."

That Fincher sure is a stand-up guy . . .