|
tant. I think adoption of this amendment
is a tremendous step forward in gaining
the confidence of the people of this State;
and we need that confidence.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment? Delegate Rosenstock.
DELEGATE ROSENSTOCK: Mr. Chair-
man, I thought I would share with our
fellow delegates some information I have
found out.
In Alabama, judges sit on the lower
courts' nomination committee. In Florida
they do likewise; also in Iowa; in Alaska,
the judge of the supreme court is an ex
officio member and chairman of the com-
mittee. In Colorado, he serves as an ex
officio member. In Iowa he serves as chair-
man. In Missouri he serves as chairman.
We believe that one judge will not cor-
rupt or influence the nomination commis-
sion, and we think he brings helpful in-
formation as to the candidates under con-
sideration for nomination by the governor
as judge to fill the vacancy.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment? Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Mr. Chair-
man, I have a question, if this is the ap-
propriate time.
THE CHAIRMAN: To whom is the
question addressed?
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: To the
Chairman of the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment first? Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: Mr. Chairman,
perhaps no person has any greater respect
for the judiciary than I. I had the pleasant
experience of serving two years as law
clerk at the nisi prius and one year as a
law clerk at the Court of Appeals of Mary-
land, and I have enjoyed by association as
an employee and subsequently as an at-
torney at both levels as well as in other
courts in the State; but I think it would
be packing these commissions to place a
judge as a member of them. I think the
judges present would tend to carry the
vote of all the lay members, and I think
the pernicious effect would be probably, or
possibly to impose upon the lay members
the impression or the opinion that the
judge would have.
|
Now, I had about a year ago the most
unfortunate experience of trying in or-
phans court in this State a case against a
sitting judge of this State. I do not think
he should have been there, but he was. I
objected to his presence, and I objected
to his arguments. Needless to say, I lost;
and I had lost before I had begun. I do
not think it appropriate that a judge of
this State sit with six lay members and six
attorneys on such a commission and I think
it would be demeaning of the judiciary to
place one in this position.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you yield to a
question?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Delegate
Mudd, would these commission meetings be
open meetings?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: I had not thought
about it. It may be that there would be a
vote-type. It may be the commission would
wish to interview someone who was recep-
tive and then maybe go into executive ses-
sion afterwards to determine. I just had
not thought about the matter, but it is con-
ceivable that there might be both open and
closed meetings.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: One other
question, Mr. Chairman, if the Chairman
will yield.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Would there
be a record of the commission report in
that the nomination would be supported
with an opinion or an expression of the
nominating commission's feelings in the
matter? Has that been envisioned?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: No, it was not dis-
cussed in the Committee, and it never oc-
curred to me that there would be any sup-
porting memoranda in favor of those
nominated.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions of Delegate Wheatley?
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: No further
questions.
|
