|
two panels, that difference can be straight-
ened out.
You also have the additional safeguard
that the intermediate court can grant re-
arguments in cases where they find that
there is really some vital difference be-
tween them, but to simply add to the num-
bers on the highest court, I submit would
be a great mistake and would weaken in-
stead of strengthen our judicial system in
Maryland.
I hope that the amendment will not pre-
vail.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment? Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: May I ask a
question of the maker, of either maker of
the amendment?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Singer, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE SINGER: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: The effect of
your amendment if adopted would seem to
be that the legislature could add two
judges so that the court would consist of
nine members and yet the concurrence of
only four, which is less than a majority of
the whole number, would be sufficient to
decide a case. Was this intended?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Singer.
DELEGATE SINGER: No, this was not
intended. We did not wish to include in the
provision such things as how many judges
would have to confer in a decision; we
thought this was more probably handled
by rule and that the court itself would
work out such a detail as that. Although I
would classify it as a detail, it is nonethe-
less an essential one.
DELEGATE STORM: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a second, Dele-
gate Storm. Does any other delegate desire
to speak in opposition? Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Mr. Chairman,
I think this is a very dangerous amend-
ment. Unless the size of the Court of Ap-
peals is established by the constitution, it
is left open for the potential manipula-
tion of future legislatures as to decisions
which that court may make and lest you
think this is a change made completely out
of the air, I can only refer you to the re-
|
cent history of the attempt to pack the
Supreme Court of the United States,
which was, of course, thoroughly and finally
defeated.
I think it would be unfortunate to leave
the Court of Appeals in a position where
in the event of an unpopular adverse deci-
sion by that court, the size of the court
could be changed by legislative enactment
and thus affect what could be crucial, major
political and current problems of the day.
I do not suggest that that is intended
by the amendment. I do suggest it is a
potential effect of the amendment.
We are entitled to stability in the deci-
sions of our highest court; be they right
or be they wrong, we at least need them
to be stable. Lawyers will realize that they
do not always get this, but at least this is
one thine: that we do need.
If the size of the court is subject to
fluctuation without the final consent of the
people by constitutional amendment, I sug-
gest that we will have lost this value.
I would urge the amendment's defeat.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Storm to speak to the
amendment.
DELEGATE STORM: I rise, Mr. Chair-
man, to answer Delegate Chabot's question,
with a different answer than my co-sponsor.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may speak on
the amendment any way you choose.
DELEGATE STORM: I did intend that
only four out of five judges could continue
to decide cases, even though there might
be nine or even ten members of the Court
of Appeals. Please note that we did not
change the number of a quorum.
I will admit that this would enable the
court if it wanted to to sit in panels, but
I have enough faith in the court to know
that they would not so panelize themselves
as to lose a cohesive and general policy, so
this was simply a labor-saving device, and
I see no manipulation, because even re-
gardless of how many judges are members,
the chief judge will be able to assign five
as a quorum, and I do not think he would
go over that unless he became a manipu-
lator. I do not believe that the chief judge
would be a manipulator in the bad sense
of the word as suggested, so I submit to
you that leaving the five judges as a
quorum and four as required to concur in
an opinion, would accomplish exactly what
|
