Judges need to be anchored to SOMEthing

Yikes, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is keeping busy. This article ("Should Judicial Elections Be Abolished?" - Above the Law) reports some of her thinking on the election of judges. I can appreciate the arguments against electing judges, but it is interesting to hear how often opponents resort to anecdotal and literary examples in support of their policy preference*:

Justice O’Connor would like to see judicial elections ended, to protect the independence of the third branch of government. “We need to encourage judges and justices, when they speak in public arenas, to talk about these matters, and to keep reminding Americans about the importance of an independent judiciary,” said O’Connor.

She thinks that if Americans were better informed about the judiciary, the need to abolish elections would be self-evident. The states with judicial elections “allow campaign contributions to be made, and there can be vigorous and unfortunate campaigns. All of those states initially had appointed judges, and after Andrew Jackson became president, he had some very populist ideals, and he started persuading some of the states that they should elect judges, not appoint them. First state was Georgia. And they’re still doing that,” she said. “Look at the Caperton case. John Grisham’s novel on appeals might be based on it. It should be a source of real concern for Americans. If we have to resort to litigation, we want to feel issues will be decided fairly and impartially in court by a competent judge who is not subject to influence by campaign contributions and leanings towards one side or another.”

Some might argue that being involved in elections forces judges to be more transparent and to educate the public about what they do, but O’Connor disagrees with that notion. “If you have looked at some of the television ads in states that have judicial elections, I do not think you would be persuaded that it’s educational,” she said. “It’s not a very civilized or educational campaign."

*Incidentally, such a policy preference in Tennessee should be trumped by the plain text of our Constitution, but I digress . . .

1st mtg of Judicial Nominating Commission

Chattanooga Times Free Press | Judicial Nominating Commission to meet for first time: "The first meeting of the state's newly formed Judicial Nominating Commission is set for Sept. 23 in Nashville." From the article:

The process for selecting the state's appellate judges, dubbed the "Tennessee Plan," had come under fire again over the past year. During this year's General Assembly session, legislators had the option of abandoning the plan and reverting to what critics say the state constitution calls for: the popular election of such judges.

Instead, the Legislature voted to keep the plan but reinvent the way in which the nominating committee is selected. The new commission takes away mandated appointments to the commission by various legal and special-interest groups such as the state bar association.

Selection by a legal oligarchy

Selection by a legal oligarchy

JNC commission named

The newly-appointed members of the shiny new Judicial Nominating Commission have been announced. For what it's worth, 15 of the 17 are lawyers.

Here's a list of [the Speaker of the House Kent] Williams appointees:

-David Bautista, an attorney and adjunct professor in East Tennessee State University's Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology.

-Mary Helen Beard, senior attorney with FedEx Corp. in Memphis.
-Ana L. Escobar, a Nashville attorney specializing in criminal defense.

-Russell Johnson of Loudon County, who is district attorney general in the 9th Judicial District and a former Republican state representative.

-Edward L. Martindale Jr., a Jackson attorney.

-William Scott Sims, a Nashville attorney.

-Denise Terry Stapleton, a Morristown attorney.

-C. Barry Ward of Tipton County, a lawyer who practices in Memphis.

Here is a list of [the Lt. Gov. Ron] Ramsey appointees:

-Miles Burdine, president and CEO of the Kingsport Area Chamber of Commerce.

-Christopher Campbell, a Memphis attorney.

-Christopher Clem, a Chattanooga lawyer and former Republican state representative.

-William Jenkins Jr., a Dyersburg attorney and son of former U.S. Rep. Bill Jenkins of Rogersville.

-Theresa Lee, senior vice president and chief legal officer for Eastman Chemical Co. in Kingsport.

-Thomas Lawless, a Nashville lawyer

-Jack Lowery, a Lebanon lawyer.

-William Young of Signal Mountain, general counsel and senior vice president of Risk Management for BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee in Chattanooga.

See also, AP for the politically correct breakdown.

Help Wanted . . .

If you're reading this post, you're no doubt aware that the Tennessee General Assembly renewed a commission-based system of selecting appellate court judges, and one aspect of the “reform” to the system was to require the appointment of a completely new selection or evaluation commission.

Accordingly, the process is underway to identify candidates for the commission, and I'm encouraging jurisprudentially conservative Tennesseans to place their name in contention. I am a little ambivalent regarding the process, because our group worked hard to replace our commission-based system. That being said, until such a day as the system for selecting judges is changed, I think it is imperative to have judicial evaluation commission members who honor judicial restraint, that is, who honor the proper role of judges in a republic.

The deadline is Friday, July 31, 2009 to have your name included on the list of persons to be considered by Lt. Gov. Ramsey and Speaker Kent Williams. There are a variety of qualifications to be appointed (a summary of them is here), but it is important to note that up to seven of the 17 seats can be filled with non-attorneys.

Please follow this link (to the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts website) for more information and for an application form.

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/geninfo/judicialselection/judicialnominationapp.htm

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.