Page 126 - Cityview_July_Aug_2015

IN-DEPTH
124
CITYVIEWMAG.COM JULY
AUGUST 2015
ing the pregame and postgame interviews to the players and manag- ers (Chief Justice John Roberts used the same analogy in his hearing be- fore the Senate Judiciary Committee; because he is in a position to “grade the papers” of our supreme court, I would gladly con- cede that he must have
“The canons set out in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10 ... encourage and, in my opinion, sometimes require comments designed to enhance not only the profession, but also the public perception of the bench and bar.”
public comment. In order to have qualified for a retention vote last August, appellate judges had to receive “passing grades” from the Judicial Performance Evalu- ation Commission, a body established by the General Assembly whose members are selected
by the Speakers of the Senate and the House to
Justice for All
By Justice Gary R. Wade
A longstanding pillar of our legal system—and many legal systems before ours— is equal protection under the law. Mirroring that notion is a system of open courts, which equally views all citizens, regardless of social class, religion, or race. This system—at its best—supports the wellbeing of all its citizens. Here, in an exclusive essay written for Cityview, Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Gary R. Wade discusses the history and the continued importance of open courts.
Introduction
Let me first say that all judges should be circumspect about public declara- tions—a precept that fits within my own judicial philosophy. That is, judges should by and large be like umpires in a baseball game—simply calling the balls and strikes and leav-
said it first). Judges must be particularly careful to avoid comments on specific issues that may one day be the subject of litigation—otherwise, recusal is the only remedy. The canons set out in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10 do, however, encourage and, in my opinion, sometimes
require comments designed to enhance not only the profession, but also the pub- lic perception of the bench and bar.
The 2014 pre-election judicial eval- uation process pertaining to appellate judges illustrates what is and, perhaps, what is not permissible in the way of