Tennessean focuses on Judicial Selection

The Tennessean editorial page on Sunday was devoted to the issue of judicial selection. If you're interested, you can read all three op/eds. Suffice it to say, whatever the purported advantages of appointment/retention of judges, opponents of electing judges need to change the Constitution rather than skirting it.

Judge-selection system in state instills trust

Skirting constitution is an abuse of power

Electing judges will only create problems

Did sitting appellate judges get their supper for free?

Conservatives want judges to sing for their supper and submit to contested elections — but will that pimp out the bench? | Jeff Woods | Nashville Scene:

Calling it a threat to their independence and integrity, judges on the state's highest courts are descending into the muddy political trenches of the legislature to try to put down a conservative populist uprising.

The judges are apoplectic over the possibility of a change in state law that they say would put justice up for sale in Tennessee. It would end their comfy, hard-to-lose yes/no elections and force them to hit the hustings like common politicians to shake down fat cats, cut backroom deals, kiss babies, talk tough in TV ads and promise the moon to voters in competitive campaigns.

But having already been placed on the bench by a coalition of powerful special interests and powerful politicians, did sitting appellate judges get their supper for free?

Fred Thompson joins trial lawyers lobby | Affairs of State | NashvillePost.com: Nashville Business News + Nashville Political News

Fred Thompson joins trial lawyers lobby | Affairs of State | NashvillePost.com: Nashville Business News + Nashville Political News:

Former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson will be lobbying the Tennessee General Assembly on behalf of the Tennessee Association for Justice – aka the trial lawyers – this legislative session according to NashvillePost.com sources.

Ka-ching!

Who says appointment with retention votes for judges is best?

Interesting analysis of the comment from Iowa Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady heralding the Iowa version of choosing judges by commission appointment and retention: ("Iowa’s Crazy Judges, Part II" - By Gary Marx - Bench Memos - National Review Online)

Judges: Politics for me but not for thee

It's no shock that appellate and supreme court judges in Tennessee are political, but it is shocking to hear them claim that they oppose elections "because politics and money corrupt the judiciary" and yet give heavily to candidates who will protect them from facing contested elections. Tennessee judges donate to politicians who oppose judicial elections | tennessean.com | The Tennessean:

According to Wade, Tennessee's Supreme Court justices and appellate judges uniformly oppose a switch to an electoral selection process.

"Contributing to campaigns from time to time doesn't mean that I cannot and most jurists cannot compartmentalize those issues," Wade said. "All of us have a constitutional right to support any candidate of our choice, and yet when I put on the black robe, partisan politics and friendships play no role.

. . . .

Wade was the most frequent contributor to political campaigns over the past four election cycles among judges from Tennessee's highest courts.

BTW, despite saying repeatedly that these big spending judges gave to both Democrats (who characteristically like the undemocratic and unconstitutional TN Plan) and Republicans (who more often than not oppose the TN Plan), the reporter failed to ask the obvious question (that, or failed to like the answer to said question): were the Republicans who got money from judges supporters of not electing judges?

Well, Republican Doug Overbey--the Maryville lawyer who was just about the only Republican in the Senate who fought to preserve the TN Plan (here, and here), sure doesn't count. Neither would the Republican who faced TN Plan opponent Mike Bell in the primary (story here).  Judges gave money in a primary race?  Someone who makes a campaign contribution in a primary, particularly a primary of the other political party, hardly seems like someone who "contribut[es] to campaigns from time to time."

This is great reporting from Andy Sher of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, Judges' donations draw criticism | Chattanooga Times Free Press, but I have to say that it concerned me to read this statement from the article:

All five Supreme Court justices back the Tennessee Plan for selecting and retaining judges.

Look, because of my experience over on the years on this issue, I was aware that all the Supreme Court justices liked the Tennessee Plan--which ignores the constitution's requirement of contested elections. But it is stunning to think that this is common knowledge. Especially when you consider that they would be the ones deciding on whether a given system complies with the Tennessee Constitution.

And that's the problem with a system that insulates judges from "politics" (read: accountability). The reason that a lot of money is potentially spent on judicial elections is because the persons elected in such elections have a LOT of impact on voters' lives. I guess we voters just need to just leave all this politicking to judges and unaccountable commissions . . .

Irony of buying favor from judges

Nice op/ed from Gail Kerr Tennessean, "Fundraising to Keep Judges from Being Bought is Ironic"):

Lawyers and former judges are raising money from big law firms to try and preserve the current method of seating Tennessee's appellate court judges.

The irony is not lost: Those very legal eagles argue that allowing judges to be popularly elected would create a system in which special interests and big powerful law firms can buy the state's judiciary.

My only quibble is with Kerr's flat assertion that, "Overall, the current system has worked beautifully to place appeals court judges who have followed the rule of law." Who says?

"Nicely" stated on "problems" with electing judges

Aside from the fact that contested elections for all judges is required by Tennessee's constitution, it is disingenuous for politicians to claim that elections beget "bought" judges. State Rep. Frank Nicely has it right I think (New fight brews over judge selection process in Tennessee | tennessean.com | The Tennessean):

The Tennessee Plan will expire in 2012. Emboldened by new Republican majorities after November's elections, however, opponents may press the issue sooner. Opponents say that in addition to being unconstitutional, the Tennessee Plan makes judges unaccountable to voters.

'If elections are so crooked that you cannot elect a judge … then what does that say about our form of government?' said state Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Knoxville.