|
think that the nominating commission is a
vast improvement, even over the federal
system of nominations, but once the nomi-
nations have reached the executive au-
thority, the appointing authority, then the
people have a check in the federal system
by the hearings and then with the ac-
ceptance or rejection by the elected officials
in the Senate.
It seems to me demeaning. If we want to
improve the quality of the judiciary and to
have that judiciary remain free and inde-
pendent, it is demeaning to have a secret
poll of lawyers.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have one-quar-
ter minute, Delegate Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: It is de-
meaning to have those judges run at all.
It seems to me that we violate the system
of free and open elections by not letting
others run. In a democracy any man ought
to be able to run for any office that is open
through the elective process and to limit
that is, I believe, eroding the principle of
the democratic system.
THE CHAIRMAN: Your time is up,
Delegate Mitchell.
I take it that was a statement and not
a question, Delegate Mudd.
Is there any further discussion?
Delegate Caldwell.
DELEGATE CALDWELL: Mr. Chair-
man, members of this Convention, for the
last couple of days, all I have been hearing
from the proponents of the Majority Re-
port, is that this system will give us the
best of the best.
Let's assume this nominating commission
makes an all-out effort to give the best
selection for the judge, but suppose when
this person is put on the bench, they find
that he does not have the proper tempera-
ment, and he does a mediocre job.
Let's assume, however, that his activities
and his decisions are not repugnant enough
to show a vote of non-confidence. Yet, he
remains on the job.
In the wings we may have very good
candidates, good judge material, but these
men or women will never have an oppor-
tunity to become a judge.
I say that this system cannot produce
the best judges for our State.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion? Does any person desire to speak
in opposition? Are you ready for the
question?
|
(Call for the question.)
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 41 to Committee Recom-
mendation JB-1.
The Clerk will sound the quorum bell,
please.
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of Amend-
ment No. 41. A vote No is a vote against.
Cast your votes.
Has every delegate voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 38 votes in the affirmative
and 88 in the negative, the motion is lost.
The amendment is rejected.
The Chair proposes to call up amend-
ment BH of Delegate Schloeder and to sug-
gest that Delegate Chabot offer his amend-
ment BG as a substitute. Mr. Rybczynski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Mr. Chair-
man, while this is being distributed, may I
ask the Chair to welcome to the Convention
my nephew, Gary Rybczynski, who is a
second-year law student and who will be
functioning, I hope, one of these days under
this system we are now enshrining into
the Constitution; and also my secretary,
Miss Caroline Bauer.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delighted to have
them here.
(Applause.)
For what purpose does Delegate Schloe-
der rise?
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: Mr. Chair-
man, would you repeat what you said? I
was gathering some of that wool that Dele-
gate Mudd talked about.
THE CHAIRMAN: I propose to call up
your amendment BH, and I am suggesting
that Delegate Chabot, whose amendment is
very similar, be prepared to offer his as a
substitute.
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: Mr. Chair-
man —
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Schloeder.
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: At this
time I was prepared to withdraw that
amendment entirely.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would be
delighted to acquiesce.
(Applause.)
Delegate Chabot, is it contagious? Dele-
gate Chabot.
|
