|
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I hope so, but
if not, I hope we can give him that privi-
lege.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Mr. Chairman,
I ask this in the context of the adoption
this morning of the local government arti-
cle, which drew a distinction between the
word "law" and the words "public general
law." Is it not correct it is the intention
of the Committee on the Judicial Branch
in using the word "law" throughout our
recommendation that we mean by that
"public general law"?
DELEGATE MUDD: That is entirely
correct.
Being mindful of that discussion this
morning, we may require some further con-
sideration of that and possible amendment
of this article.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Macdonald.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Mr. Chair-
man, calling your attention to sections 5.08
and 5.10, what were the disadvantages, in
the Committee's thinking, of allowing func-
tional divisions in these two courts to be
established by either rule or by law?
DELEGATE MUDD: You mean making
it optional or concurrent with the legis-
lature and with the courts?
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Precisely.
Especially in view of the last section
whereby you provide that when the General
Assembly has the power and when the
court has the power by rule that the last
enactment shall prevail.
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes,
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Especially
in view of the history whereby there has
been very little conflict between General
Assembly and Court of Appeals in its rule
making authority.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett, do
you still have a question?
DELEGATE MUDD: I did not answer
Delegate Macdonald..
THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry; I thought
the last was an observation rather than a
question.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: I was
clarifying.
DELEGATE MUDD: Our view in re-
sponse to that was that this was peculiarly
|
within the authority that we thought might
more appropriately be exercised by the
court in its rule making power through a
standing committee that is always avail-
able to consider matters of this nature. We
believed that these functional divisions
might be more usefully availed of and made
better to accommodate the needs by rule
making power than through a public gen-
eral law.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Macdonald.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Do you see
any real disadvantages in giving the Gen-
eral Assembly the same power by law?
DELEGATE MUDD: No. I just think
it is more flexible and can be more readily
brought to accommodate the need through
rule making power; but personally I have
no serious objection to concurrent power in
that field.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Delegate
Mudd, was it discussed by your Committee
or in the Committee that when a superior
court judge was not present in his county
but had been assigned, let us assume for
the moment, to some other jurisdiction to
relieve a caseload there that a district court
court judge located in that same county
or in that district would be available to
sign orders such as injunctive orders or
probate matters, or things of that kind? If
so, how would that be accomplished?
DELEGATE MUDD: It could be accom-
plished by two means. One, the legislature
should prescribe concurrent jurisdiction at
the two-tier level, then recourse might be
had to the judge of either court. On the
other hand, the court by rule could provide
for assignment of judges, which, as I un-
derstand it, is contemplated to be either
laterally or from a lower or higher tier. It
could be accomplished in either or in both
ways.
THE CHAIRMAN: If there are no fur-
ther questions —
Delegate Koss.
DELEGATE KOSS: Mr. Chairman, I
apologize for prolonging your ordeal. Also,
we are going back to an area that has
been discussed.
I would like to know what is the critical
element in the term "judicial power" that
would prohibit the General Assembly from
eroding the court system as it is outlined
here?
|
