MUTH’S TRUTHS

A constituent recently wrote an email to State Sen. Warren Hardy (R-Clark County) about a bill which would change how judges are selected in Nevada. It’s a tough call for a lot of conservatives here, since there are compelling arguments on both sides. But get this response from Sen. Hardy…

“Thank you for contacting me regarding SJR2. This resolution presents a real challenge for me.

“I hold our right as Americans to directly elect our leaders as one of the most sacrosanct rights we possess. However, I also recognize, and agree with, the indisputable desire of the founding fathers to insure an independent judiciary. I particularly recognize the articulate argument of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist number 78 and I recommend it for your consideration. Clearly, Hamilton embraced the notion that, in our system of government we simply must have a judiciary which will endeavor to interpret the law as it is written and not seek to legislate from the bench or be forced to consider the political consequences of their rulings.

“In the time I have served in the legislature, I have watched with some frustration as the judiciary has issued a number of rulings that I believe were greatly motivated by the political consequences of following the letter of the law. The most obvious example would be the 2003 ruling of the supreme court that the legislature need not reach the constitutional mandate to achieve a 2/3 majority in order to increase taxes. As you know, once the political pressures of the legislative session passed, the court overturned that decision.

“As difficult as it is for me to vote to diminish the input of the voters, even in a small way, I simply think the political pressures brought to bear on judges by the election process may force them to consider factors other than the strict letter of the law and I agree with the founders that such a circumstance is extremely dangerous to our system of government.

“I think SJR 2 represents a nice middle ground since judges will; in fact, face the electorate in a vote for retention. In addition, if we do pass SJR 2 it simply means the question will advance to a vote of the people, which I believe is the appropriate venue to make such an important decision.

“Again, thank you for contacting me. This is a difficult issue but I do support SJR 2 as a method to protect the independence of the judiciary from the perceived conflicts of the fundraising process which is regrettably necessary in any contested election.”

WHOA! How often do you find a legislator actually consulting the Founding Fathers and the Federalist Papers in their deliberations to do the right thing by the people they represent? Not to mention taking the time to respond to a lowly citizen in such a courteous and thoughtful manner? And answering a direct question with a direct answer without “spin” or double-talk? What a breath of fresh air!

Posted on April 20th, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada