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.