|
This amendment in the first instance is
an effort to restrict the application of our
recommendation on how best to select
judges in Maryland, to the two appellate
courts, the Court of Appeals, and the In-
termediate Court of Appeals. I call your
attention to the fact that the Minority Re-
port said in the first line that it was a
minority and not a dissent. If the system
we propose has merit and the Minority
Report admits that it does, and is a better
system than we now have, the first ques-
tion is why limit it to selecting 12 judges,
seven to the Court of Appeals and five for
the present membership on the Intermedi-
ate Court of Appeals. Why not have it
apply to the selection of approximately 150
judges, if we are to have a district judge
in every county?
The amendment here has attempted to
be divided. The effect of it is to splinter or
pick at the selection and tenure proposal
of our Committee, which it has considered
at great length after hearing a wealth of
testimony; and our recommendation is in
full accord with the substantial weight and
quantity of testimony before our Commit-
tee. We respectfuly suggest that if the
method to approve the selection of judges
in Maryland is good, then it must be good
for all of the judges and not only for the
twelve at the appellate level. We, there-
fore, respectfully suggest and urge the re-
jection of this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd,
Delegate Johnson has indicated he does not
wish to allocate any more of his time at
the moment. Do you wish to allocate any
of your time? For what purpose does Dele-
gate Grant rise?
DELEGATE GRANT: For the purpose
of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
As I understand it, the part that is to be
amended, that is section 5.14, deals with
all the judges, but the amendment itself
simply deals with the Court of Appeals
and the Intermediate Court of Appeals. I
question whether this is an amendment to
section 5.14, or is something missing; it
does not say what is to be done with the
rest of the judges.
THE CHAIRMAN: I take it from what
Delegate Johnson, Chairman of the mi-
nority, has said that if this is adopted they
will have other amendments with respect
to other delegate positions. Is that correct,
Delegate Johnson?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
|
DELEGATE GRANT: A matter of in-
formation: Since the Committee proposal
5.14 deals with all judges, is it possible to
consider an amendment which strikes the
entire section dealing with all judges and
consider an amendment dealing with judges
of the tiers?
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair thinks so.
This poses a problem with which we have
been confronted. The alternative is to con-
sider in connection with this amendment
several other sections. Delegate Mudd, do
you desire to allocate part of your time?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, I would like
to yield to Delegate Henderson as much
time as he wants.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: Mr. Chair-
man and fellow delegates: I understand
that we are now squarely presented with
the issue as to whether the merit selection
of judges should apply at any level, and
I shall address myself to that. The Ameri-
can Judicature Society which is composed
of judges, lawyers, and laymen, has devoted
itself to judicial reform for more than
thirty-five years. The spokesman for this
Society appeared before us and told us that
they consider the first and most important
item of judicial reform to be the merit se-
lection of judges, the object being to get
the best men on the bench free of political
obligation.
I shall not attempt to discuss now the
facts stressed by those who have served
on bar associations: that our ablest lawyers
are unwilling to run for judicial office in
an open election, and that they ought to
be able to serve at an age when they would
be eligible for retirement in the business
world.
For example, Joseph Oppenheimer was
sixty-five when he went on the bench and
Judge Markel sixty-two and Judge Bloom
was over sixty. We are not getting the
best judges and we are not getting them
at the early age when we deserve to get
them, but I shall stress what I think is the
most vital point of all. I think we must
all agree that justice must be handled by
independent and impartial judges without
fear or favor.
If a candidate must campaign for elec-
tion which is contrary to the code of ju-
dicial ethics, if he must seek the support
of political parties or factions, sooner or
later he will be asked to do favors; wheth-
er he complies or not is beside the point.
Justice like Caesar's wife must be above
suspicion.
|
