Easley's supreme appointment
Much attention has been paid to President Bush's successful nomination of John Roberts as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and still-pending nomination of Harriet Miers as associate justice.
Little has been said in North Carolina about the fact that Gov. Mike Easley has an important appointment coming up early next year.
Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake Jr. of the N.C. Supreme Court must retire on his 72nd birthday Jan. 30.
That's right: North Carolina has a mandatory retirement age for judges.
Not for any other elected officials.
That's one difference in how the U.S. and N.C. Supreme Courts work.
Another is that we elect state judges in North Carolina.
But, when vacancies occur, the governor fills them by appointment until the next scheduled election.
Easley will appoint Lake's replacement, who will serve until a successor is elected in November 2006.
Our judiciary is nonpartisan, but Lake is a Republican who heads a conservative court.
Can I get anyone to take a bet that Easley will appoint a Democrat to the seat?
I promise you, it's a sure thing.
There's no hint yet as to who that will be. Whoever, it surely will be someone who is willing to run for an elected term. Easley doesn't want to put a seat-warmer in the state's highest judicial office.
Lake isn't only chief justice, he's head of the state's entire court system. In my view, he's done an excellent job, which he's fully capable of continuing after his 72nd birthday. I think the mandatory retirement age should be raised to 75 or eliminated altogether. One compromise could be to allow older judges to finish their elected terms but not run for a new term after they're 72.
Easley's appointment will not be subject to legislative confirmation.
He'll have to be careful, though. A poor choice won't hold up at election time.
Associate Justice Edward Brady already has announced he'll run for chief justice. He's a Republican. He will NOT get Easley's appointment.
But remember, this is a nonpartisan court.
Yeah, sure it is.
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
If I had to bet based on my absolute lack of any first-hand knowledge, I would put my money on Sara Parker as Chief, and an appointment of another Democrat as Associate Justice.
Nobody is going to beat Sara Parker in an an election for Chief Justice, and she is the longest tenured justice on the court (I think). Plus, she's a well-respected darn good judge.
Posted on October 13, 2005 1:12 PM
DFL,
Parker is a logical choice but I wouldn't bet on her. Too risky politically.
Remember, she won re-election just last year to an eight-year term. She's the only Democrat on the court. If Easley appoints her, she has to run again in November to keep the chief justice seat. If she loses, she's out.
If Easley promotes Parker to the top seat, he fills her vacancy with another appointment -- who also has to run in November. What if that person -- presumably a Democrat -- also loses?
That could leave the court with NO Democrat justices. That's why I say the strategy is too risky. It would be better for Democrats to keep Parker on the court, guaranteed, for another seven years.
I agree that Parker probably would beat Ed Brady, but there are no sure things in politics. Just how much do you want to bet if you're Mike Easley?
Posted on October 13, 2005 1:26 PM
And if Easley were republican, you wouldn't care one bit. We won, get over it Doug.
Posted on October 15, 2005 12:34 AM
The thing about this situation, Jim, is that Democrats changed judicial elections to nonpartisan because Republicans started winning most of the partisan races. OK, fine, let's do nonpartisan.
So, why is it that the Democratic governor almost aways appoints Democrats when judicial vacancies occur?
Posted on October 15, 2005 8:54 PM