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 . . .