|
amble article, and it is something that I
strongly believe in, but there are cases, and
this is one of those cases where I think
that a provision like this would essentially
destroy the whole nominating procedure.
In discussing this with an individual
lawyer who may seek nomination as a
judge, it might be necessary to say things
which, while true approvable, would neces-
sarily adversely affect this lawyer in his
practice if he were not chosen.
It seems to me that if this procedure is
allowed, it were to be, or that it would not
work.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any other
discussion? Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Mr. Chairman,
it seems to me that this amendment puts
us right at the crossroads of what some of
us have been talking about, the lack of an
element of responsibility where nominating
commissions will in fact over a period of
time select the judges of this State.
I had understood from the majority that
this process was to provide a method
whereby the job would seek the man, not
the man seek the job.
We are not talking here about a group
of people that have been elected by the
electorate. We are talking about people
that have been put together by a combina-
tion of factors, lawyers and the appointive
process. I think there may be a case where
executive sessions with respect to elected
officials dealing with individuals subject to
appointment to statewide jobs, but this is
an entirely different matter. This is a mat-
ter where people are going to be operating
and giving to the governor of this State
no more than five men.
I think this is a perfectly proper amend-
ment, and I certainly would hope that the
Committee of the Whole would approve it.
THE CHAIRMAN : Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition? Dele-
gate Marvin Smith.
DELEGATE M. SMITH: Mr. Chair-
man, may I echo what Mr. Willoner has
said here and say to you, sir, that there are
times when people might be regarded by
some folks as proper for the bench and yet
others of us might know circumstances
with reference to those individuals that
make them manifestly improper for ap-
pointment to the bench. This discussion
would of necessity have to come up in the
nominating- commission, and having that
|
discussion on the record, might serve to de-
stroy an attorney against whom there
might not be grounds for going before a
grievance committee, but nevertheless who
might be improper for appointment to the
bench.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Koger.
DELEGATE KOGER: Mr. Chairman, I
would like to speak in favor of the amend-
ment. I think if we have any officeholders
who should be beyond reproach, like Cae-
sar's wife, it should be a judge. I think
we should know all about them. I think
that all hearings for judges should be open
to the public, so that we will know the
kind of men that we are trying to appoint
to office.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Schneider.
DELEGATE SCHNEIDER: Mr. Chair-
man, I do not have too much in the way of
new things to offer, but I really would like
to reemphasize the fact that if this com-
mission is to operate in the manner in
which it is at least contemplated to operate,
they are going to have to bring up person-
alities. They are going to have to bring up
things which not in the best sense should
be made public about some of these people
who are candidates for judgeships. They
are going to have to completely investigate
these people, and if we want them to come
up with good nominees, they are going to
have to go down to the deepest depths into
this man's history, into all of the skeletons
in his closet. We want this information to
come out in the public, but I do not think
we want these people to be liable to pos-
sible slander and libel suits. I do not think
we want to seriously cramp the effective-
ness of the commission and make them
afraid to speak up because the public and
the press is there. I think this amendment
would very seriously hurt our nominating
commission.
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.
I do so because I think we can draw an
analogy from this amendment with the
method in which judges are appointed to
the federal bench.
The names of nominees to the federal
bench are submitted to the Judiciary Com-
mittee, and I think they rigorously examine
every candidate and every nominee neces-
|
