Home › Local › Greater Memphis
Attorneys: Judges, politics don't mix
Supreme Court case comes as merit plan debated
Local attorneys and judges say a U.S. Supreme Court decision warning elected judges to avoid ruling in cases that involve big-money donors highlights the importance of keeping politics out of judicial selection.
The decision in a West Virginia case comes at a time when judicial selection is an issue in the Tennessee legislature, where the 15-year-old merit-selection plan is under attack.
STORY TOOLS
More Greater Memphis
- Dalai Lama re-gifts award money to National Civil Rights Museum
- ATF tells Tennessee that a federal gun law trumps the state’s
- Shelby County takes on vacant buildings, blight
Share and Enjoy [?]
Some conservatives are pushing to return to contested elections for higher court justices.
On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris, R-Collierville, postponed until Thursday compromise legislation that would replace the current judicial selection process with a new, 17-member Judicial Nominating Commission. House and Senate speakers would appoint the commission's members, whoever they wish, as long as 10 of them are lawyers.
Opponents to the change argue it would bring more politics into the judicial selection system.
"I cannot speak for the Bar," said attorney Lucian Pera, chairman of the Tennessee Bar Association's committee on ethics and professional responsibility, "but my view is that (Monday's Supreme Court ruling) appears to be a good and sound decision."
The 5-4 decision came in the case of Don Blankenship, a West Virginia coal company executive who spent $3 million of his own money to oust one West Virginia Supreme Court justice and elect a replacement.
In Tennessee, the five Supreme Court justices and 24 appellate judges currently are appointed by the governor from nominees screened by a 17-member commission. They face a yes/no retention vote by the electorate at the next statewide biennial August election, and again every eight years.
The rest of the Tennessee judiciary -- including Criminal Court, Chancery and Circuit Court judges -- are elected, which means they have to run campaigns and raise money.
Those elections usually involve small contributions, often from lawyers' groups.
"But we do elect judges," Pera said, "and they do have to raise money to run, and that does lead to issues about when they may not be seen as completely impartial, especially when some litigant or lawyer appearing before them has contributed money to their campaign."
"I have never seen that happen in 25 years on the bench," said Shelby County Circuit Judge Robert Childers.
"With those kind of (small) amounts ... as a practical matter, it doesn't make a difference," Childers said.
Lawyers typically "contribute because they want to get qualified people on the bench," Childers said.
He said he will recuse himself from a case if there is any question of impartiality.
Memphis attorney George T. "Buck" Lewis, this year's Tennessee Bar Association president, is hoping the legislature does not want to revert to elections for Supreme Court and Appeals Court justices.
"What we have seen in Alabama, Georgia and West Virginia ... are multimillion-dollar campaigns, bitter campaigns," Lewis said.
"We have not seen any of that in Tennessee," he said.
-- Chris Conley: 529-2595
Latest user submitted photos:
The most e-mailed items:
- Dalai Lama welcomed to Memphis with offering of scarves, fist bump
- Geoff Calkins: Zen and the art of living in Memphis
- Dalai Lama arrives in Memphis
- Police investigate 3 robberies in University of Memphis area
- Investor snaps up properties, resells at below-value prices
- ATF tells Tennessee that a federal gun law trumps the state’s
Items with the most audience comments:
- CRIME REPORT: Quick-witted neighbor helps police nail burglary suspect
- Jewish Democrats blast former mayor Herenton
- CRIME REPORT: Two charged with aggravated burglary in Arlington break-in
- Dalai Lama welcomed to Memphis with offering of scarves, fist bump
- Tennessee gun debate shifts aim to weapons in cars at work site
- Just elated to be an American
There are 8 responses to this article.
Comments are meant to offer our readers a forum for thoughtful, robust debate about local issues.
Comments are moderated, but you may find the content of the conversations offensive, objectionable or factually disputable.
Comment List
The Commercial Appeal does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post or respond to every suggestion for a comment to be removed.
Before you post, consider this:
Please read our official Terms of Use.
Posted by peggyisonagain on June 10, 2009 at 4:29 a.m.
Reply to this post | Suggest removal
'Judges and politics don't mix'
- AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
Footnote: When judges and politics do mix what you get is a mess too big for even the sewer system to handle. When judges were for sale wasn't that when the mobsters ruled? or was that just a TV show?
Posted by avgguy on June 10, 2009 at 8:03 a.m.
Reply to this post | Suggest removal
This decision -- coming from a noted split Liberal and Conservative Supreme Court, all of whom were put in place by either Liberal or Conservative Presidents with all of their own agendas, where every decision is biased towards the ideology of each Justice depending on whether they are Liberal or Conservative.... Hmmmm.... That is the very definition of "do as I say, not as I do." Because politics is ABSOLUTELY a part of every decision that comes out of the Supreme Court.
Posted by Misanthrope on June 10, 2009 at 8:33 a.m.
Reply to this post | Suggest removal
As at minimum, 50% of the judiciary in this country, at any level, is ignorant, loathsome and untrustworthy.
A far more notable headline would have been:
Judges, lawyers don't mix.
Posted by Iceman47 on June 10, 2009 at 9:36 a.m.
Reply to this post | Suggest removal
in response to avgguy
If I remember correctly, the President nominates someone for the Court. Then there is the Congressional review and a recommendation yay or nay. Then a vote. It's our elected officials who ultimately have the decision, not the President.
Frankly, I think it's a good thing to have different opinions and postures in the Court. Kinda' keeps folks on their toes. JMO
Posted by BogeyMan on June 10, 2009 at 10:12 a.m.
Reply to this post | Suggest removal
Judge Childers is out of touch with reality (or just in denial).
His comment reminds me of what any politician caught with his hand in the contribution cookie jar says, namely "I'm not influenced by contributions." Yuh, right.
The system of judges accepting campaign contributions from lawyers STINKS. Litigants believe judges are in bed with the lawyers who appear before them (why else would voters not accept the recommendations the bar association puts out at every election of who the competent judges are).
Until there is complete transparency in campaign contributions, so everyone knows what lawyers have contributed to a judge's campaign, and until judges recuse themselves from sitting on cases where those lawyers appear, there will always be a dark cloud over the judiciary.
Posted by molonlabe28 on June 10, 2009 at 10:35 a.m.
Reply to this post | Suggest removal
This is another excellent example of the CA, yet again, offering one side of the story.
The Tennessee Bar Association, and some high profile members of the judiciary who were selected (and not elected) under the expiring system, want to continue to disenfranchise the voters of Tennessee by letting a select group of people, who are not accountable to the voters, decide who is worthy of serving as an appellate judge.
I trust the people of Tennessee more than I trust the Tennessee Bar Association and the other legal special interest groups who sit at the judicial selection table under the existing (and, mercifully, expiring) selection process.
The people of Tennessee vote on judges almost every election cycle.
I trust Tennesseeans to vote on appellate judges and, in the process, to give appropriate consideration to matters asserted in judicial campaigns - like they do in the case of all other judicial races and in the case of all other elections.
The Tennessee Bar Association believes that it knows better than we do on these matters, so it should continue to participate in the process to the exclusion of Tennessee voters.
The Tennessee Bar Association claims to be concerned about the politicization of the judicial selection process, but its President, Buck Lewis, is the former Chairman of the Tennessee Democratic Party and has been politically active for many years.
Do they really sound like someone who is concerned about the politicization of a matter?
I agree with Judge Childers (whom we are fortunate to have in Shelby County) that I don't see politics in the courtroom.
And I certainly have tremendous respect for our Tennessee Supreme Court.
But I also demand the right of the voters of Tennessee to have the right to either elect appellate judges or to have a Constitutional Convention at which a different method is approved.
Mark Norris is demonstrating leadership on this issue by insisting on having a Constitutional Convention to address this issue.
Who can disagree with having a Constitutional Convention at which all parties can have a dialogue about the matter?
Posted by COR415 on June 10, 2009 at 12:25 p.m.
Reply to this post | Suggest removal
The difference between God and a Judge is God does not think He is a Judge.
Posted by fishnlawyr on June 10, 2009 at 9:19 p.m.
Reply to this post | Suggest removal
Right at 30 years ago I was a new lawyer working for a few dollars; hoping for a better day; and learning as much as I could.
My boss had a losing case into which he had invested too much time and energy and even I knew he had a losing case.
EVery time we went to court the judge/chancellor would hand him another defeat so he decided to file a motion requesting the judge/chancellor to recuse himself.
I was given the task of walking it those two blocks to the courthouse and leaving a copy of it with the judge/chancellor. It was a long, long walk.
Luckily he wasn't there so I left it with his courtroom clerk.
A year later, the judge/chancellor was still so mad at me that he forced me to write a designated 8 page brief on the validity of service of process in a no-fault divorce. This, to you non-lawyers, is a no-brainer and is controlled by a couple of lines in the statute covering irreconcilable differences divorces.
Do you get it??? Judges take pride in their impartiality and you had better have a real good reason to risk their anger in, not this case, but the ones that come down the road a little later.
BTW, the judge/chancellor refused to recuse himself from my boss's case. He was right about that...but not about nailing my hide to the wall years after I had left that downtown tall building law firm.
(Requires free registration.)