Not withholding judgement
In the wake of a recent 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court [Citizens United vs FEC] regarding the right of corporate political expenditures, the public wonders once again if our courts are politically motivated in their decisions. Such cases test the "indefeasible" constraint of Constitutional law and define the cornerstones of our democracy and its rule of law.
Here in Tennessee none perhaps more demonstrative of this concern occurred recently in the case of John Jay Hooker vs. The Board of Professional Responsibility. Hooker, an attorney, unrelentingly has challenged the constitutionality of the State Supreme Court's right to their seats on the bench under the retention-election statute, where they run opposed. In his appeal, the Supreme Court refused to recuse itself in matter.
The BOPR, as the Supreme Court's appointed agent suspended Hooker's law license for what it termed "frivolous litigation." Common sense dictates that extreme self-interest held by members of the Supreme Court would require their recusal from such a decision yet they declined to withdraw and quashed Hooker's civil right to challenge their authority.
With public trust of politicians and attorneys at nearly the bottom of any ranking, I am reminded once again that judges are a combination of the two supposedly venerable professions.
Tony Gottlieb, 37077