Fight for Judicial Restraint in Tennessee
There is a debate raging in Tennessee between those who want the judiciary to be responsible, loyal to the constitution and those who want an active judiciary; loyal to political ideology.
AFP-TN supports limited, constitutional government and want a judiciary that reflects those values.
Click here to find your state Representative and state Senator – tell them you want an accountable judiciary in Tennessee. You support SJR 710.
Thus, we support a judicial selection process that models the federal constitution. We believe Tennessee’s judges should be appointed by the Governor, based on merit, and be held accountable to the people through requiring confirmation from the General Assembly.
Liberal activists want an unaccountable, faceless committee to appoint judges. To learn more about why it is important to have accountability in the judicial selection process, check out the brilliant NRO piece below.
During the debates on the U.S. Constitution, James Madison proposed the appointment of judges by the president with the concurrence of the Senate. Madison believed “this would unite the advantage of responsibility in the Executive with the security afforded in the 2d. branch agst. any incautious or corrupt nomination by the Executive.” Alexander Hamilton echoed that statement in Federalist 76, explaining that nomination by the chief executive was superior to nomination by a collective body because:
By the end of this week, we will probably know whether Tennessee’s top public officials prefer that method of selecting judges, or whether they are behind the Soros-supported Missouri Plan. (The competing constitutional amendments are SJR 710, passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and HJR 830, approved by the House Judiciary Committee.)