Extraordinary politics as usual

One legislator's name came to mind--"Hank" Fincher, when I read this statement from David Fowler (of Family Action Council of Tennessee):

And the Senate Republicans didn’t believe the House would accept a true election bill which, of course, we’ll never know for sure since they really didn’t have to vote on a bill that only did just that. And you never know because legislators have been known to rail against bills then vote for them if voting against them is not politically smart election-wise. And voting against letting people vote on something as important as their Supreme Court judges could be something an election-year opponent may just love to talk a lot about.

(emphasis mine) Fincher voted AGAINST commission-based selection of judges on Thursday, after voting and speaking in favor of commission-based selection of judges at every turn during this session (here).

I'm amazed that someone as outspoken as Fincher would think he could get away with this. That's a whole new level of disingenuous.




Hat tip, Post Politics

UnFinching support of status quo . . .

In a report in The Tennessean last week we learned that Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey is not comfortable with elections (he should take that up with the generations of Tennesseans who placed and maintained that provision in the Constitution), and wants the House and Senate Speakers (aka, himself) to have discretion to appoint whomever they want to the judicial commissions. But he also says that anything less than judicial elections needs to be approved by the voters. Mark my words, Democrats will NEVER agree to letting the voters settle the question (again--as they did in 1978).

But I loved Democratic Lawyer and Cookeville Rep. Henry Fincher's attempted criticism of Ramsey's proposal:

He's presenting the people of Tennessee with two poor options: Either allow him unfettered, unilateral control over the state's judiciary, or bring in expensive elections where big corporations and insurance companies can buy the Supreme Court.

Under the current system, which Fincher supports, the Lawyers' Lobby has "unfettered, unilateral control over the state's judiciary." And "the big corporations and insurance companies" are--like Fincher, squarely behind commission-based selection of judges and indifferent to what's in the Constitution.

Another Democratic lawyer, Democratic House Judiciary Chairman Kent Coleman, from Murfreesboro said,

The process that currently exists does a good job in taking as much politics out of the process as possible . . . I think that's a better process than giving the speaker full discretion.

The only politics that the current system takes out of selecting judges is the kind of politics that takes place in public and that gives voters a voice in the process.

In a Finch, demagoguery will do (or maybe not)

Rep. Hank Fincher (here) was in fine dismissive and demagogic form in the House Judiciary committee's discussion on HB2018 yesterday. "Horrible," "up for sale," "fervent hope," "spectre," "big money," "scare." He lost anyway.

First, he completely mischaracterized the effect (not to mention the intent) of this bill (he's either ignorant or wholly disingenuous). This bill only would spring into effect if the judicial commissions are not renewed or extended or replaced. That's a big "if."

But he also showed a major disconnect in claiming that Elitist support for commission-based selection of judges (and Elitist indifference to the text of the TN Constitution) was somehow dispositive of the issue. Fincher:

When you got the trial lawyers and the Chamber of Commerce in agreement on an issue, you ought to stop and think for a second if you're disagreeing with them. Because those two groups are diametrically opposed on so many things. . . .

Actually, that scenario may very well reflect that you are disagreeing with "The Powerful." That's one thing that those two groups have in common, and why would they complain when they have the "big money" and insider influence to influence the back-room decisions made by judicial commissions?

Encourage your state senator or representative to do the responsible thing and support HB2018/SB2618 to avert any potential confusion if the General Assembly does not reach an agreement on Judicial Selection before July 1st.

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 . . .

Closed-door, partisan control of selecting judges

Yesterday's Tennessean covered the debate on judicial selection and included an assertion about the fairness of the existing system. From the article:

Democratic Rep. Henry Fincher, a Cookeville attorney, argued the existing system has promoted the merit-based selection of judges. "To me, we have a system that appoints fair, impartial judges of both parties," he said.

Well, that may be true "to him," but it's not supported by the facts, according to a recent study completed by Brian Fitzgerald of the Vanderbilt University Law School.

Fitzpatrick discovered:

• Between 1995 and 2008, the commission nominated “twice as many appellate judges more affiliated with the Democratic Party (67%) than with the Republican Party.”
• The sharp political tilt in nominations is not matched by Tennessee’s voters. “Although 67% of the Tennessee Plan appellate nominees between 1995 and 2008 were more affiliated with the Democratic Party, during the same time period Democratic candidates for the state House received only 51% of votes and Democratic candidates for Tennessee’s federal House delegation received only 49% of votes.
• Regardless of whether the governor was a Democrat or Republican, the majority of nominees the commission sent were more affiliated with the Democratic Party.

See Fitzpatrick's study here.

Carrying your own water . . .

Jeff Woods of The Nashville Scene is calling out a state legislator for carrying a bill that would "help" his industry of home inspection Nashville Scene, "Pith in the Wind - Conflict of Interest? What's That?"):

Rep. Phillip Johnson, R-Pegram, is looking out for No. 1 in Nashville. He's a home inspector, and this session he's pushing two bills to help that business.

Though I can't find that rule anywhere (see House Rules here), it's not a bad idea.

Nevertheless, I guess it's safe to conclude Jeff Woods and Gary Moore would agree that lawyers in the House and Senate (Kent Coleman, Doug Overbey, Henry Fincher) have no business carrying legislation on behalf of the Tennessee Lawyers' Lobby?




See also: PostPolitics