|
1
|
and power to summon witnesses and documents and papers
|
|
2
|
and the like. I say I wonder whether that would be a
|
|
3
|
ruleraaking power that would be exercised.
|
|
4
|
THE CHAIRMAN: I would think that the Supreme
|
|
5
|
Court could not delegate that power, but perhaps could
|
|
6
|
set up a commission to maybe make recommendations.
|
|
7
|
JUDGE WARNKEN: How would the commission get
|
|
8
|
the facts that they wanted to approve? In the first place
|
|
9
|
the judge complained against would have to have a hear-
|
|
10
|
ing. I think that is pretty deeply rooted now from the
|
|
11
|
Supreme Court decision. He would have to be notified
|
|
12
|
of the things that he is charged with and so on. How,
|
|
13
|
how would the commission -- would the commission conduct a
|
|
14
|
hearing as sort of a referee? How would it get the facts?
|
|
15
|
How would it summon witnesses who are reluctant to appear
|
|
16
|
and give immunity?
|
|
17
|
JUDGE PROCTOR: The Court of Appeals recently
|
|
18
|
adopted a rule on disbarment which covers all that.
|
|
19
|
JUDGE WARNKEN: On what?
|
|
20
|
JUDGE PROCTOR: Disbarment or disciplinary
|
|
21
|
proceeding rather.
|
