Documenting the American South Logo
oral histories of the American South
Excerpt from Oral History Interview with Robert W. (Bob) Scott, February 11, 1998. Interview C-0336-2. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) See Entire Interview >>

Opposition to an elected judiciary

Scott believes that judges should be appointed, not elected. He does not believe that partisan politics should seep into the judicial branch.

Citing this Excerpt

Oral History Interview with Robert W. (Bob) Scott, February 11, 1998. Interview C-0336-2. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Full Text of the Excerpt

And furthermore, I think that—I wish that they would do something about the election of the judicial branch. I just think that's an anachronism from years gone by.
JACK FLEER:
You think they should be appointed?
ROBERT W. (BOB) SCOTT:
Some means—and I'm not certain just how. I think the Chief Justice's plan, the report of the Exum committee, Jim Exum, the former chief justice, I think it was pretty sound, as best as I understand it. Some modification of the Missouri Plan, as they call it. I'd like to see that happen. There's bound to be—you're never going to get politics out of it, as long as you're dealing with people. The question is, whose politics? So I think the justice system would be better served in that way. In particular now that the rules have been relaxed, and I deplored seeing partisan politics coming into judiciary debate, and that the bench is going to be elected on the emotional issues like whether they favor or oppose abortion and those kinds of things. But it's difficult for anyone to go to the people and say, "We're not going to let you vote on that."
JACK FLEER:
That's a powerful argument.
ROBERT W. (BOB) SCOTT:
It's a powerful argument, and it plays well out across the state.