Rule of Law vs. Rule of Man--Judicial Selection in TN

If you missed Larry Daughtrey's op/ed in yesterday's Tennessean, I encourage you to give it a read . . . it provides a vignette of the Liberal comfort with "rule of man."

The underlying issue is the so-called "Tennessee Plan"--a blatantly contra-constitutional way of picking judges that (conveniently) has allowed TN Liberals a choke-hold on judicial selection for the past 14 years. Whether you think elections (as required by our constitution) or "merit selection" (as instituted in 1994) is the better way of choosing judges, there's no question which way is mandated in our state constitution. Daughtrey has written off and on about his preference for "merit selection." (He needs to take that up with the ghost of Andrew Jackson).

But in this piece, Daughtrey laments that former "lion king," and Lt. Governor, John Wilder has been reduced to "begging" before an "inconsequential" senate committee when in Wilder's heyday, a "nod or a gesture" would have gotten Wilder whatever he wanted--legislatively speaking.

What a contrast, no? I, for one, am glad that some Tennessee legislators--ones on an "inconsequential" committee (acc. to Daughtrey), are seemingly indifferent to whether John Wilder's feelings might get hurt if they oppose his policy proposals in favor of what our Constitution requires. Daughtrey and his ilk like the present system because they like who is picking the judges . . . and they trust these folks to make the decisions outside the public's view. He may deride opposition to Wilder's pet legislation as veritable elder abuse or actions of a "hard-right breed savor[ing] political power" . . . I'd characterize it as rule of law.