It seems that four of the members of the Governor’s Council, that vestigial organ of state government, are throwing their sippy cups at the news that Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito intends to preside at this summer’s hearings for Governor Baker’s three nominees to the Supreme Judicial Court.
Never mind that under the Constitution the Lieutenant Governor is also a member of the Council and presides when the Governor is absent. Also never mind that the Governor has “full power and authority, from time to time, at his discretion” to call the Council together. Also never mind that there’s plenty of precedent for the Lieutenant Governor to preside on occasions that the Governor regards as appropriate, like, for example, nominations to the state’s highest court. With a Trumpian self-regard, four Councilors have gotten themselves in a huff over the plan.
Councilor Marilyn Devaney of Watertown (who has been known to throw other objects besides her sippy cup) demanded to know why the Lieutenant Governor was intent on usurping “our duties.”
Councilor Robert Jubinville of Milton openly conceded that he wanted the spotlight: “I don’t know why you want to take it away from us. This is a chance for councilors to do a hearing like we did with Judge [Ralph] Gants, to get some publicity and you’re taking it away.”
In response to the argument that Lieutenant Governor Murray had presided over the hearings for the SJC nominations of Governor Patrick, Councilor Christopher Ianella of Boston pouted thusly: “Murray at least asked.”
Councilor Eileen Duff of Gloucester went so far with her indignation to suggest that it might affect the votes on the nominations: “This is all about publicity, it’s all about press and it’s all about Karyn Polito. It’s not about the Governor’s Council and it’s not about the candidates. It’s absolutely disrespectful and outrageous….This administration is not setting these people up very well now for not having a whole lot of tie votes coming up.”
Really, these people are judging our judges?
I like that.
I had no idea that three SJC positions were being filled. Although the Supreme Court in DC gets a lot of the press, it’s not negligible the role that our state supreme court plays. And because judges are shunted to this anonymous, pointless body, I don’t think the confirmation process gets much attention. Bad enough that the people on the Governor’s Council are dysfunctional, but they also do important work underneath almost everybody’s radar for that same reason.
I don’t have much affection for DeLeo, but I would trust the Senate and House of Reps over this Council of Nobodies to do a better job vetting this rather significant positions (remember, it was the Mass. SJC that was the first body in the land to recognize equal marriage).
…not that we need to question the constitutional structure. I’m very surprised this is an issue. I thought in practice the LG WAS the usual presiding officer.
You don’t solve grandstanding by paying more attention to the grandstanders. You do it by getting rid of the soap box. Let the Senate confirm judicial nominations.
Beyond that, I will simply refer my honourable friend to comments I have made previously on this matter.
Obviously the people on the SJC that recognized equal marriage were vetted by the GC.
There was a lot of angst that Baker will be appointing 3 justices because of the the mandatory retirement at age 70. But it gets WORSE! He will be appointing 2 more next year, effectively appointing the entire court! And he’s choosing people in their SIXITES!!!
Meanwhile, in the photo, he is standing with nominee Judge Kimberly Budd (a Patrick appointee), who if confirmed will be the first woman of color (I think?) on the court. But who would be interested in that?
And proud Dad Wayne Budd, officially one of the Republicans We Like.
the SJC than their legal competence. Evidently, there is such a thing. I think it involves experience and legal philosophy.
I don’t know much about this subject, but I don’t think the SJC is SCOTUS. Baker isn’t Reagan or Bush. Massachusetts is not America.
I’m as partisan as anybody, but I’m with our resident Republicans at this point. Aside from marriage equality, I’m unfamiliar with any other SJC decision. Even if the GC is a clown show, I don’t see them approving an Anton Scalia. Maybe I’m wrong. But I’m not seeing any evidence for it.
Mark, of all people, I’d expect you’d be familiar with LEXINGTON v. ZAGAESKI.
Basically, the SJC threw out the idea of proportional discipline for public workers. If the boss doesn’t like how you scratch your nose, he can fire you.
You’re much better educated labor-wise than I am. I’ve been a P.A.L., but this will be my first year as a building rep.
the guy too. He sexually harassed a student.
You’ll have to tell me more. I didn’t read it deeply, but they ruled that the arbitrator overstepped his bounds.
The student said something inappropriate in his class. He repeated the remark and said “don’t be ridiculous”. He repeated the remark two days later to the student. One statement. The district decided that was grounds to fire him.
Those are the facts. The principle in question is if any discipline needs to be proportional, or serve the students. The SJC decided no. It decided that the district, regardless of how or why it makes its decision, can fire at will any educator for what the court itself called “nominal” concerns. (This goes against the documented intent of the Education Reform Act).
I’m not sure I blame the judges. My reading of law is pretty basic, but once things reach the appeals court or SJC (SCOTUS), decisions are based on reading the law. Finding the intent of the legislators.
I don’t see anything capricious or politicized in the decision or in the reading of the Ed Reform Act.
And Geller provided precedent for this case:
In short, we may not like the decision, but I don’t see any reason to blame the court. I don’t see evidence of ideology or ignorance of precedent. From a management point of view, I would also be concerned about an arbitrator’s over-involvement in my deciding discipline. Employees deserve protection from hostile or capricious sanctions by management, but, how much authority do you grant the arbitrator? The court finds that the “school has proved conduct amounting to one of the grounds permitting dismissal.” What standard or test is supposed to show when the school has gone too far?
It’s an interesting case, and I’m not an attorney, but I’d have to hear a compelling legal argument that goes beyond the policy effect.
When it comes to appointing judges, anyway, we’re pretty bipartisan here.
Four or the five judges that Governor Patrick elevated to the SJC were first appointed as trial judges by Republican Governors Weld and Cellucci.
Likewise, one of Governor Baker’s SJC appointments, Kimberly Budd, was first appointed as a trial judge by Governor Patrick.
I’m with sabutai here. Lexington v. Zagaeski was a sham.
The vast majority of the cases decided by the appellate court are criminal cases. For many years the MA SJC had a decided prosecutorial bent -and was very conservative when it came to the constitutional rights of those brought before the court – over the past 8 or so years it has been a more balanced courts (though as in all courthe vast majority of criminal defendants lose their appeals)
What is remarkable about these three appointments is there is no diversity of practice area background. All three (nowmaking up almost half of the court) come with a primarily or strong prosecutorial background. This is much like the Romney judicial appointment to all the trial courts – one prosecutor after another (though worse n the fact that they were all whie men until Romney was called on it)
Patrick appointed Geraldine Hines, the first African-American woman and Fernande Duffly, the first Aisan-Amercian woman.
While all three appointments are respected jurists – there is an importance of diversity of background – and all three come with a primarily or strong prosecutorial background – much like the Romney judicial appointments
…the part about Councilors often presiding over hearings for nominees from their own districts. That would have been important context as to why they felt a bit put out by having the LG preside. Here I thought the objection was Polito as opposed to Baker himself presiding. It still seems much ado about not very much. I guess a similar situation would be if Vice-President Biden insisted on presiding over a routine Senate session, constitutionally very appropriate, but would throw the noses of the GOP majority out of joint politically.
The rules are the rules, and they are not (or should not be) a mystery to anyone involved. It’s that important to them who gets to bang the little gavel?
the arguments are so big because the stakes are so small.
These people are elected to a sinecure, and they complain.