|
sary for a judgeship in the federal system.
I think that we, too, should at least know
all about the judges that we appoint.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: In speaking
against the amendment, may I be permitted,
as Mr. Mason did, to give you an analogy
from federal experience. The Bar Associa-
tion of the District of Columbia has a
Judicial Selections Committee. I was priv-
ileged to serve on that committee for two
years, during the course of which we were
called upon many times to give our recom-
mendations as to persons being considered
for the federal bench, although of course
the Bar Association's recommendations, as
they are in Maryland, are advisory.
In one instance at one meeting, a dis-
tinguished lawyer had been recommended
for promotion to the highest Court of Ap-
peals in the District of Columbia. At that
meeting one of the members of the com-
mittee brought up information about a per-
son who was at one time a partner of this
man. There was no question that as far
as the partner was concerned, he had been
guilty of grossly unethical conduct. The
way the matter was presented at the first
meeting, it looked like this happened at a
time when this man was a partner of the
man being considered for the federal judge-
ship. The committee, however, did not de-
cide that day, and sought more informa-
tion. At the next meeting we were provided
with information that made it perfectly
clear that when the man acted unethically,
he was no longer a partner of the person
who was being considered for the federal
bench. If that first meeting had been pub-
lic, not only would the professional repu-
tation of a distinguished lawyer been
smeared and perhaps fatally impaired, he
would not have been appointed, I am sure,
to the high office that he was appointed to
and where he serves now with the greatest
distinction.
I cannot think of anything worse than
opening up the meeting of these commis-
sions to the press. I think that many law-
yers, however, whatever their integrity,
whatever their past, would be very disin-
clined to permit their name to be submitted
to such commission to have it bandied about
and their life history bandied about in a
public meeting. They would prefer to con-
tinue to practice law and forego the judge-
ship.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: I rise to support
the amendment. First of all, we are not
|
talking about bar association meetings, and
I presume the bar association could still
make its recommendation to the commis-
sion. For this reason, I do not think the
reasons advanced by Delegate Scanlan are
absolutely controlling. If a man does not
want to be considered for a judgeship, it
would be very simple to indicate so to the
commission. If a man's life cannot come up
to complete scrutiny, he should not aspire
to the office of judge. You must remember
that these people that we are picking in
the commission will be the selection. The
governor has only a ministerial duty of ap-
pointing one of the group that is given to
him. He is given no leeway.
I point out to you the situation in the
federal government where the nominations
for the federal bench are given very care-
ful scrutiny by the Senate before their con-
firmation. This would simply provide that
once a man has indicated that he would
aspire to a judgeship, that he is willing
to have his life put on the line, then I
think that his record should be available
for public comparison with the record of
the other people. If a man does not want to
do this, it would be a very simple matter
for him to indicate he does not wish to be
considered.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Bard to speak in opposition
to the amendment.
DELEGATE BARD: Before speaking in
opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chair-
man, may I ask Delegate Mudd a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think so
inasmuch as there are several other people
seeking the floor to talk. I will recognize
you at the proper time. Delegate Hargrove.
DELEGATE HARGROVE: Mr. Chair-
man, if we were to pass the amendment, I
think we should then suggest an amend-
ment whereby the executive or a committee
of the legislature which considers executive
appointments should have those meetings
open to the public. As I understand it, they
are generally closed sessions. We should
also offer amendments to the provision on
disability of judges, because in a sense we
do the same thing there.
I would suggest that the federal analogy
is an extremely poor one, because in the
federal system, the judge is selected, and
it is then that he is open to the scrutiny
of the Senate. We are not talking about
the same thing. We are talking about the
process of selecting one man. This is done
by the American Bar Association and sev-
eral committees, and this information cer-
|
