Which makes the current controversy regarding Tennessee’s Judicial Selection process all the more salient.

Oh, Whah! Why is it conservatives are happy with the system until a Democrat gets to pick the judges? And why is it Democratic-appointed judges are “activist” but the ones using their position to promote conservative ideology are not?

This is at least small compensation–very small–for the two sucky Supreme Court justices President Bush got to pick.

So go cry in your coffee. Life ain’t fair. Deal with it.

If you’re referencing my comments, I am not happy with the system and it has nothing to do with which party controls the executive branch. And I don’t particularly care which type of system we have in our state (”merit selection” or contested elections). I am concerned about a practice of winking and nodding at explicit Constitutional language (Tennessee’s Constitution says “judges shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state”; that seems pretty obvious.”)

I’m more than willing to argue the “activist” issue, but I didn’t bring it up and I think it is a distraction from the point of my post.

Yes, life isn’t fair, but I hope we can all agree that rule of law is preferable to rule of (wo)man.

[…] SEE ALSO: Music City Bloggers […]

Southern Beale:

You must have missed Ned Williams impassioned plea for Bushco to quit holding up confirmation of enough members so that the FEC can have a quorum (Not that THAT’s political!) in order to go after John “McCain-Feingold” McCain for violating his agreement with them.