|
competence on the bench to convince you
that we ought to do something about the
judiciary. I do not think that anyone in
this room would disagree with the proposi-
tion that we do not get the best people to
be judges, and we do not get the best people
because they are a fiction of a process
which involves at one level politics of the
bar association and on another level un-
restricted politics.
I am ashamed of a profession which is
not appalled by the very idea that not the
very best, but just the merely qualified
people serve in its highest position. I urge
you to vote against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
President and delegates of the Convention:
I rise to speak in favor of the amendment,
although I am generally opposed to the so-
called Niles plan for selection. I do it in
deference to the minority who have offered
it as a compromise only affecting the Court
of Appeals and intermediate appeal court.
I say that our good friend hit the nail on
the head when he said if you are for this
type of appointment and selection, you are
just transferring politics from one area to
another. This, built-in nominating commis-
sion would, in my opinion, give rise to the
most insidious politics in judicial selection
that this State has ever seen.
I say that in our bar association and in
our public lay members, we would have
politicians of the most insidious type who
could not even be elected dogcatchers, yea,
they could not be elected to catch a filthy
cat. Yet they would be eligible. Why? They
do not submit themselves to the public. Yet
they would be perfectly qualified for these
commissions while other members of the
bar association and the public would not
be if they would not remove themselves
from judicial appointment for two years,
as is required by other sections of the
judiciary article.
They would not say that they would not
run for public office. So this is a built-in
thing for these fellows who plan every-
thing behind the scenes and never submit
themselves to the general public.
We ought to let the bar association make
the selection, and if the bar association is
wrong the governor need not appoint from
the list that the bar association gives.
|
Our present system is fine. I will go
along wih this amendment as to Court of
Appeals because the Court of Appeals'
opinions cannot be analyzed by the public.
The trial judge can be analyzed by the pub-
lic, and the members of the bar. I propose
to come in with a proposal that a judge
who is not opposed must run on his record,
and if he has opponents, that the opponents
can run on their records, too, and the peo-
ple can vote on these records or oppose
them all.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: Those who say
the most say the least. I began my pro-
fessional career at the age of 13 in a
cotton mill in North Carolina; I know
something about people. I do not think we
will be perfect, but I think we should do
the best we can. We will do our best if
we put in our plan. I agree to some degree
that you must take what lawyers tell you
with a grain of salt, but hospitals are still
run by doctors and churches by priests and
schools by educators, and I think you
should pay some attention to what the au-
thorities in judicial administration have
been telling the people for years, and that
is that this program is the best that has
been designed.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: I rise in sup-
port of the Committee's plan.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Penniman.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: Mr. Presi-
dent, I was in the Senate of Maryland
when we passed what we called the Sitting
Judges Bill, when a sitting judge could run
on either ticket. From my observation I
think it is the last thing that the Mary-
land legislature has ever done that is of a
forward nature in regard to the judiciary.
In the closing hours of the last night we
passed a bill that the sitting judges should
run on both tickets. It was a step in the
right direction, and it has worked fairly
well.
I recently had a conversation with a fel-
low lawyer who was a close friend of a new
judicial appointee. He said he told him no
one could tell anything about him after
only two years; that he was still on good
behavior. He said he wanted to know what
the judge would be doing six years later;
that was when he could be truly evaluated.
I am against this amendment because I
believe that anything we do will be a step
forward in the right direction in the selec-
tion of proper judges.
|
