Hating Democracy More

6 Responses to “Hating Democracy More”

1. Donna Locke writes
   June 12th, 2008 10:12 pm

   No, it wouldn’t be a worse system. The people would have a chance to oppose and block those special interests, a right withheld from them in Tennessee now.

2. Morris Berg writes
   June 13th, 2008 7:46 am

   The Supreme Court (and federal courts generally) is not democratically elected. The framers were very clear about their reason for doing this. There are very obvious reasons that you want certain positions insulated from politics. Go read the Federalist Papers. The same reasons/principles apply to state courts. It is not that difficult to understand. The democratic process is played out when you select the executive and legislative members who then make these decisions. Go look at the mess that is Texas, Alabama, Mississippi “justice” and then see if how awesome having the Chamber of Commerce select the highest judicial offices really is.

   This whole “Hating Democracy” meme is a very skillful soundbite that seems to be swallowed whole by those who have not thought the matter out. Why do these people hate the framers of the Constitution who happened to think elected justices was a very stupid idea?

3. mike writes
   June 13th, 2008 2:01 pm

   Morris,

   The question that you and the governor and the defenders of the present system have to answer is, what part of “they shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state” do you not understand. The present language has been in our state’s constitution since 1870. The first retention vote in the nation was not until the 1920’s. There is no way the framers of this clause in 1870 could have possibly imagined a retention vote.

   We can argue all day about what is the best method the choose judges but what is crystal clear to anyone with their eyes open is our constitution clearly calls for popular election of state judges.

   Remember, the people have already rejected an amendment to place the “Tennessee Plan” in our constitution in 1978.

4. Morris Berg writes
   June 13th, 2008 2:09 pm

   Mike:

   I agree with your analysis. But lets take the BS “democracy” vs. “undemocratic” and have an intelligent non-demagogue discussion. If you have noticed, this has been something both parties have been rather consistent in their “creative interpretation” of said clause for quite some time. So despite Billy Hobbs’ recent adoption of this as a cause celeb for the TNGOP, we need to ask ourselves if we really want Mississippi or Texas style judicial/political free-for-alls.

5. mike writes
   June 13th, 2008 3:40 pm

   Morris,

   Point taken. As you probably know the popular election of judges in this state actually goes back to 1853 and it grew out of the populist movement inspired by Jackson. The change to a merit system didn’t start until the early 1970’s.

   There are several plans this state could consider. The current merit system, a modified federal system, or popular election. I will continue to argue and fight for whatever system we choose to be properly placed in our constitution through the amendment process where the people have a say.

   I would also argue that the burden of bringing forth and passing a new amendment should be on those who disagree with popular election because that is already in the constitution.

6. Morris Berg writes
   June 14th, 2008 4:38 pm

   mike:

   I doubt you are still reading this, but I personally would go with a modified federal system - one where the executive and legislative are more directly accountable - and definitely I would want to eschew direct popular vote (no . . . not because I hate democracy or don’t trust the voters but for thee broader systemic issues raised above). As for the “speakeasy” status of the current compromise, I agee that it is unacceptable. They need to get law and practice in alignment. I am scared the partisan nature this issue has now taken will serve no one in the long run.