Comments on: Could Appointed Judge Serve Longer Than Original Term? http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/08/01/could-appointed-judge-serve-longer-than-original-term/ & Home of Lawn Mower Repair Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:46:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: Danny http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/08/01/could-appointed-judge-serve-longer-than-original-term/#comment-7507 Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:16:35 +0000 http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/08/01/could-appointed-judge-serve-longer-than-original-term/#comment-7507 <i>. . . SNAP! . . .</i> ouch! As for comment #1, thanks for bringing all this up and helping us learn something. I found it very interesting. . . . SNAP! . . .

ouch!

As for comment #1, thanks for bringing all this up and helping us learn something. I found it very interesting.

]]> by: anonymous http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/08/01/could-appointed-judge-serve-longer-than-original-term/#comment-7505 Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:08:51 +0000 http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/08/01/could-appointed-judge-serve-longer-than-original-term/#comment-7505 The law might be a bitch. But it marks its territory so haphazardly so often that I would suspect a Y chromosome instead. The law might be a bitch. But it marks its territory so haphazardly so often that I would suspect a Y chromosome instead.

]]> by: Flea Bailey http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/08/01/could-appointed-judge-serve-longer-than-original-term/#comment-7503 Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:48:59 +0000 http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/08/01/could-appointed-judge-serve-longer-than-original-term/#comment-7503 Ain't the law a bitch? Ain’t the law a bitch?

]]> by: anonymous http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/08/01/could-appointed-judge-serve-longer-than-original-term/#comment-7500 Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:16:23 +0000 http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2007/08/01/could-appointed-judge-serve-longer-than-original-term/#comment-7500 Ah, yes, "Justice Per Curiam" strikes again in the Hooper case. Surprisingly, one of the parties in that case made a good point that under the new constitutional language, "an appointee is expressly appointed to his own term," which was different from the old constitutional provisions that were reviewed in the McDonnell case that Hooper cites. Still, like pouring old wine into new wineskins, McDonnell was successfully invoked to support a conclusion that "no appointee can serve beyond the term of his predecessor in office" even though the Constitution itself had changed markedly from the time McDonnell was decided in 1917. Given the Alabama Constitution means what five current members say it means on a given day, I would not be surprised if the unsigned opinion in Hooper is not strictly applied the next time that a Republican governor appoints a Republican judge to a vacancy where the preceding officeholder had less than one year to go before having to stand for election. Until that happens, though, I'll have to strike my colors and concede that the phrase "shall serve an initial term lasting until the first Monday after the second Tuesday in January following the next general election held after he has completed one year in office" has been written out of the Constitution in situations where an appointee is (un)lucky enough to be appointed to replace a judge who had less than a year left in his (or her) term. Ah, yes, “Justice Per Curiam” strikes again in the Hooper case. Surprisingly, one of the parties in that case made a good point that under the new constitutional language, “an appointee is expressly appointed to his own term,” which was different from the old constitutional provisions that were reviewed in the McDonnell case that Hooper cites. Still, like pouring old wine into new wineskins, McDonnell was successfully invoked to support a conclusion that “no appointee can serve beyond the term of his predecessor in office” even though the Constitution itself had changed markedly from the time McDonnell was decided in 1917.

Given the Alabama Constitution means what five current members say it means on a given day, I would not be surprised if the unsigned opinion in Hooper is not strictly applied the next time that a Republican governor appoints a Republican judge to a vacancy where the preceding officeholder had less than one year to go before having to stand for election. Until that happens, though, I’ll have to strike my colors and concede that the phrase “shall serve an initial term lasting until the first Monday after the second Tuesday in January following the next general election held after he has completed one year in office” has been written out of the Constitution in situations where an appointee is (un)lucky enough to be appointed to replace a judge who had less than a year left in his (or her) term.

]]>