news-record.com

The legal vs. the political

A key point from last week's judicial selection debate at Elon Law School:

"Highlighting the recent state Supreme Court decision in State v Bowden, affirming that life sentences were defined as 80 years for those individuals convicted during a five year period in the 1970s, Exum said the justices decided the case correctly according to the law, but that the decision could have an impact in elections.

“ 'The decision was legally correct, but politically it is absolute dynamite,' Exum said. 'If the members of the court were up for election in November, do you think any of them would survive? Probably not. If you want judges to decide cases according to the law, then it seems to me to follow that we don’t want judges to be subject to being recalled by a popular vote of the people on the basis of the decision that they made.' ”

"Exum" is retired N.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice James G. Exum Jr. of Greensboro.

I think he's exactly right. If any judges involved in the Bowden case were unlucky enough to be on the ballot today (none was), defeat would be probable -- for making a decision that's sound according to law but politically unpopular.

On the other hand, as Elon law prof Scott Gaylord argued, a judicial appointment process opens the door to political patronage.

No easy answers.

I'm sorry I missed this debate. My father-in-law, Bill McFarland, died the same evening. A retired attorney from Columbus, N.C., Bill loved the law and no doubt would have enjoyed the event himself.