More Perception Problems in Tennessee
January 18, 2011
Tennessee judges have contributed more than $200,000 to political candidates over the past few election cycles. Some of these judicial contributions have targeted lawmakers trying to change the state’s “merit” selection system in order to give more power over judicial appointments to ordinary citizens, rather than legal special interests. A perception problem? Not according to Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Gary Wade, who tried to unseat “merit” selection opponent Senator Mike Bell:
“Contributing to campaigns from time to time doesn’t mean that I cannot and most jurists cannot compartmentalize those issues. 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.”
Let me get this straight. If Justice Wade makes a campaign contribution, he can just “compartmentalize” it and still render fair rulings. But if he accepts a contribution, suddenly he’s compromised and unable to set aside bias?
Justice Wade is right about his “constitutional right” to donate to the candidate of his choice. But he’s using that “right” to try to block the people of his state from exercising a no less important “right” guaranteed by Tennessee’s Constitution – the right to pick the judges who serve them.
Fortunately for Tennessee voters, Justice Wade’s campaign contributions didn’t keep Mike Bell from reaching the Senate. In fact, he’s been appointed to the Senate Judiciary Committee where he plans to introduce legislation that would take the “right” to choose judges away from powerful lawyers-only group and return it to the people.
Posted by Dan Pero in the categories: Tennessee
One Response to “More Perception Problems in Tennessee”
[...] drew sharp questioning in American Courthouse from Dan Pero, who asked: “If Justice Wade makes a campaign contribution, he can just [...]