|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Willoner,
do you desire to speak in favor of the
amendment?
DELEGATE WILLONER: Mr. Chair-
man, much has been said that I would have
said, but I would like to indicate to the
body that this is a problem that really
bothers me.
I have had experiences where I have
been, not the lone member, but a lone mem-
ber in association with a judge, and whether
you like it or not, if you have to practice
before the gentleman, he has a very defi-
nite effect on your thinking.
Now, it is true that if it were a question
of choosing between an animal and a rea-
sonably competent individual, you would
probably get up on your haunches and
choose the man who is competent; but it
is a problem, and this nominating commis-
sion will be made up of, I would hope,
practicing lawyers, and I think if the judge
were there, it would have an adverse effect
on the decision of the lawyer members of
the commission.
I might point out that the discussion that
was had with the commission in Missouri
was in the presence of a judge, and in
reading it, I had to think that this might
very well have affected some of the con-
versation, although it was a very impres-
sive telephone call.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition? Dele-
gate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I just wanted
to ask a question, when that was proper.
THE CHAIRMAN: To whom did you
wish to address the question?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: The Chairman
of the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does another person
desire to speak first? The Chair recognizes
Delegate Winslow.
DELEGATE WINSLOW: Mr. Chair-
man, I am a layman and I am disturbed by
the idea that laymen are more prone to
accept someone else's opinion than are
lawyers.
I had never known this about myself
until this moment, but it seems to me that
it is quite unwarranted for anyone in this
Committee of the Whole to make a judg-
ment about a layman. If you want to judge
your fellow lawyers, go ahead and do it;
but we will speak for ourselves.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment? Delegate Mason.
DELEGATE MASON: Mr. Chairman, I
rise to speak in favor of the amendment.
Despite the disclaimer by some of the law-
yer delegates that they would not be in-
fluenced by the presence of a judge on the
nominating commission, I suggest to you
that most lawyers would be influenced in
some degree by the presence of a judge.
Now, if perchance the lawyers are not
influenced, I can assure you that the lay
persons on the commission would be, just
as they are when they sit as jurors. There-
fore, I will vote in favor of the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd, do
you yield to a question from Delegate
Scanlan?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, sir. I would
like to have it in writing, but I will at-
tempt to answer.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Chairman
Mudd, are there any states using nominat-
ing commissions, either in whole or in part,
on which commissions' judges do not sit;
and secondly, if there are such instances,
has the operation of the nominating com-
mission system suffered from the fact that
judges did not sit on them; and thirdly,
in your personal opinion, would the opera-
tion of the nominating commission system
proposed by your Committee suffer if a
judge did not sit on the Commission?
DELEGATE MUDD: I respectfully sug-
gest he asked me three questions.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I will accept
three answers.
DELEGATE MUDD: In response to
your first question, our research indicates
that there are five states now using the
nominating commission process, on which
commissions a judge does not sit.
I have no information as to whether
those commissions operate better or worse
than those with the judge, and what was
the third question — my personal opinion?
My personal opinion is that I am embar-
rassed for those lawyers as advocates who
here admit that they are not going to
try to influence a judge.
THE CHAIRMAN: The remaining time
allowed for debate in this period is now
only three minutes. There are three dele-
gates seeking recognition. I ask each of
|
