Watchable: Tennessee lawmakers warn judges

On the heels of what some are calling the Arizona Supreme Court’s overstepping during last evening’s ruling reinstating Colleen Mathis as chair of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission — comes this interesting bit of news.

Brandon Gee, writing for The Tennessean, a Gannett sibling of the Arizona Republic, reports that the state’s lawmakers have had their fill of the groups that discipline, nominate and evaluate Tennessee’s judges.

The Government Operations Joint Subcommittee on Judiciary and Government met this past Tuesday to discuss whether to retain the Court of the Judiciary, the Judicial Nominating Commission and the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission or let them expire. Legislative members made it clear that a broad restructuring will be on the table when the full General Assembly reconvenes in January.

Gee’s in-depth, Page One report can be read here.  How interesting that the Arizona daily, sharing the same corporate daddy as The Tennessean, reports nary a word about this major story.

Meeting for arguments last night, Arizona’s Justices stunningly overruled Gov. Brewer and the state Senate, which voted  21 – 6 for Mathis’ constitutionally provided removal on charges of “gross misconduct.” Brewer and the senators are all elected and answerable to the citizens of Arizona.  Those wearing the black robes are appointed and then, in a smoke and mirrors scheme, put on the ballot for “retention.”  All judges are retained.

Mathis was represented in the matter by former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Thomas Zlaket.

10 Responses to Watchable: Tennessee lawmakers warn judges

  1. LD 7 PC says:

    What a cozy arrangement. Colleen Mathis used real savvy hiring a former Chief Justice to argue before the justices sitting on her case.

  2. Arizona Conservative Guy says:

    How nice it would be if our state lawmakers had spine enough to emulate their Tennessee counterparts. Arizonans were sold a bill of goods when the sham called Merit Selection of Judges was first put on the ballot. In many ways it is similar to the current problems we’re seeing with this so-called Independent Redistricting Commission. Redistricting was better done in the bright light of day by legislators who had to answer to the voters for their actions. These commissioners are appointed and answer to no one. It is also reminiscent of the so-called “Clean Elections,” which is actually taxpayer funded campaigns or welfare for politicians.

    Voters are busy and if an issue is given a saleable title or has attention grabbing ads, they vote for it without reading all the fine print. What a mistake. These matters are then enshrined in the state Constitution, and would require Hannibal and his massive teams of elephants to pull them out of the muck. They’re constructed that way to make these bold insider’s legal manuevers impossible to correct.

  3. chick says:

    It’s rather incestuous.

  4. Vince says:

    That’s quite an article in the Tennessean. I hope its read by all of our Arizona legislators. It might light a fire under them.

  5. MacBeth says:

    What about the Constitutional mandate for “separation of power?” The three separate branches — Executive, Legislative and Judicial — have checks and balances on each other, but none can abuse the power they are given. This action by the Arizona Supreme Court has the appearance of the judicial branch running roughshod over the Legislative and Executive branches. Who controls the out of control judiciary? Also, why were they meeting at night? Just curious, and I’ve not read any reason.

    • Arizona Eagletarian says:

      They weren’t meeting at night. The oral arguments hearing was at 2pm. It was over at 3pm. By 6pm a ruling had been issued.

      The law was that clear and straightforward. By the way, there were three Republicans and only two Democrats on that panel of judges.

      Lots of sour grapes among conservatives lacking critical thinking skills in Arizona today.

  6. LEO IN TSN says:

    Which AZ justices, by name, supported this tyrannical decision, and which ones opposed it?

    • GOP PC says:

      I have neither read nor heard any information in that regard, Leo. Have you heard what the split was, or if it was a unanimous decision?

  7. Dennis O'Brien says:

    The linked article on the Tennessee lawmakers is excellent and much appreciated.The state of Tennessee has produced three U.S. Presidents. It has a proud history. I hope these current lawmakers are able to implement some decisive changes to the current system that makes judges titans. But trying to fight the liberal Bar Association is a mammoth undertaking.

    And Leo, I’d like that same information you mention. If you are able to locate it, I respectfully request that you let us know by posting it here.

  8. Maggie says:

    Bravo, Tennessee!!