Today’s Herald reports that Republican Gov candidate Kerry Healey has called for a new “review board” that would have the power to recommend the removal of judges from office. A constitutional amendment would be required to give this board the authority she wants it to have.
Under Healey’s proposal, every judge in the state would be reviewed every seven years by this supposedly “independent” board. (And who names the members of this board? Why, the Governor, of course.) The board could recommend that any judge be removed from office. Removal would require approval of the Governor and the concurrence of the eight-member Governor’s Council (a body not noted for its independence).
This is a terrible idea for a couple of reasons. First: it demolishes the separation of powers and the notion of an independent judiciary by placing the fate of judges entirely in the hands of the executive branch – the board that could recommend removal would consist of gubernatorial appointees, and the final decision would belong to the Governor and the Council. Tom DeLay, who has urged the destruction of the separation of powers in a different way with respect to judges, would be proud.
Second: it’s unnecessary. The state Constitution already has a provision, called a “bill of address,” by which a judge can be removed from office if both houses of the legislature and the Governor and Council concur (it’s just like passing any other bill, except that the Council has to approve it and there’s no way to override a veto). Just because Healey’s proposal would make it easier to remove judges by concentrating the power to do so in the executive branch doesn’t make it a good idea – quite the opposite, in fact. There are good reasons why judges, once in office, are difficult to dislodge. Personally, I want judges not to fear the Governor.
Of course judges screw up from time to time. If a judge screws up badly enough, let the Governor make a case to the legislature that a bill of address is warranted. But isn’t it funny how, to people in the executive branch – especially those who belong to the Republican party, supposedly the party of smaller government – the answer to just about every perceived problem is to concentrate more unchecked power in the hands of the executive?
By the way, apparently the Globe missed this story completely. Anybody home over on Morrissey Boulevard? Hello?
“But isn’t it funny how, to people in the executive branch – especially those who belong to the Republican party, supposedly the party of smaller government – the answer to just about every perceived problem is to concentrate more unchecked power in the hands of the executive?”
<
p>
If the government is basically just the executive and his/her immediate advisors — and the other branches are rendered obsolete — then I guess the Republicans could very well make the case that they have made government smaller. You can’t get much smaller than a government of one (administrative bureaucracy notwithstanding).
<
p>
As for the DeLay/Healey proposal, no further comment is really necessary, is it?
Sandra Day O’Connor who warns against interference by politicians with the judiciary
More on that here.
For those who missed O’Connor’s speech against polictial interference with the judiciary.
<
p>
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5255712
we’re still a two-paper town. The Herald may write trashy headlines, and feature O’Reilly-esque columnists, but its new operation can still pull out some scoops.
<
p>
That’s frightening. If Kerry Romney wants to align herself with a loose cannon like Tom DeLay, we’re all in trouble. Part of the problem with these Romney Republicans is they think they’re above the law.
This is an obvious sop to those nutjobs who think that flying planes with anti-judge banners will shift public opinion.
This is all about scarring people about perceived problems (crime) and keeping focus away from real problems that she has no idea how to deal with.
<
p>
In a democracy we have to be vigilant about civil rights in a “lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key” environment.
Demagoguery is dangerous.
<
p>
How much money is in Kerry Healmann’s budget for toys and overtime for police types?
Kerry Healey – Out of Touch jumped on this issue this morning.
<
p>
Check it out here:
<
p>
http://kerryhealeyoutoftouch.blogspot.com/2006/03/kerry-healey-wants-ebert-roeper-to.html
<
p>
The best part of their analysis:
<
p>
Why is this wonderful news?
<
p>
A) It has NO chance of ever happening.
<
p>
B) I can’t wait to see the political backlash. Over in Texas, they may like judges replaced every few years via election… but here in Massachusetts, the vast majority of people understand that an independent judiciary is key to maintaining justice. It’s already too encumbered by the executive wing of this state as it is.
<
p>
Healey’s numbers, with proposals like this, are going to go way down before they go up.
<
p>
Who thinks Republicans may go shopping for another candidate soon enough?
I think it is revealing that Healey wants to give the power to remove judges to an appointed committee of the Governor’s friends rather than make them elected. Typical Republican: rule by nobility. I am sure the idea plays very well in Pride’s Crossing in Beverly. If she really thinks judges lack accountability, why not elect them. Her cold shoulder to the people does not bode well for the coming campaign. The American Judicature Society has a useful guide to judicial selection rules in various states.