Tennessee politics behind the scenes
In his dissent from the decision in Higgins vs Dunn which is the case now relied upon to allow retention-Selection of appellate judges, Justice Allison Humphries wrote, ""Have we not like "Esau" (in the Bible) sold our precious birthright, equality and freedom, for a mess of pottage, a cheap easy way to be retained in office."The conduct of ignoring the plain language is disgraceful.
I agree 100% that the current system needs changing. In case you missed it below, here is my simple response to Sen. Campfield's suggestion of conflicts with my proposed SJR 710.SJR 710 for the first time includes intermediate appellate judges in Art. VI, Sec. 3. Under the current constitution, they are covered by Art. VI, Sec. 4. The two sections are not in conflict with one another because the language that currently includes intermediate appellate judges in Sec. 4 simply references "other inferior Courts." "Other inferior Courts" means all courts other than those explicitly listed in Sec. 3. By explicitly listing intermediate appellate judges in Sec. 3, there is no reason to amend the current language of Sec. 4.SJR 710 changes the selection process for full terms and vacancies for judges of the Supreme Court and intermediate appellate courts from election to appointment. There is no conflict between this new language in Art. VI, Sec. 3 and the vacancy provision in Art. VII, Sec. 5 because the latter section already references "appointment or election to fill a vacancy." Senator Campfield's selective quotation of Art. VII, Sec. 5 omitted the key sentence that obviates the need to amend Art. VII, Sec. 5. It works in tandem with the appointment process in SJR 710.
An election is an election and the justices in Higgins v. Dunn simply misrepresented the use of the word election as it appears in Art. 2, sec. 29, Art. 11, Sec. 3, and Art. 11, Sec. 9. These misrepresentations are the justifications they attempt to sell in their opinion. They claim that the word election is used to define an up or down vote for the adoption of referenda. Nothing could be further from the truth as in each article, the words preceding and following the words election are: "Upon an", "at an election", and "in an election by a majority of those voting in said election". Two of these provisions describe that such referenda should be decided while accompanying, at the same time as, and by the same voters as, those also voting in the election, it does not substitute the meaning of election nor do these sections use the words election and referenda interchangeably, as these deceptive justices whom wrote this self serving opinion would attempt to lead you to believe. The other, Art. 2, sec. 29, includes specific language referencing that 75% of the voters must approve the referenda. Claiming that the use of the word election, as it refers to a referenda in Art. 2, sec. 29 and as it is used in Art. 6 are interchangeable is misleading as to their contexts. The underlying rational in the majority opinion in the Higgins V. Dunn case is so contrived, so self serving, without regard to the facts, that those who crafted it should have their names and their cases forever stricken from the records of our great state as they are a terrible disgrace to our judicial branch. Justice Humphries was the only honorable justice willing to stand up to the self-serving political winds of the time. The Constitution means what it says. "All power is vested in the people". We the people, must take action to recover Our Constitutional and Due Process Rights. Thank you Senator Campfield for standing strong with Justice Humphries defending the Constitution from this Judicial Fraud.
Here are the rules for comments. Know them. Live them. http://lastcar.blogspot.com/2011/04/rules-for-comments.html?m=1