Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
John Jay Hooker vs Gov. Bill Haslam et. al.

John Jay Hooker vs Gov. Bill Haslam et. al.

Ratings:
(0)
|Views: 13|Likes:
Published by John Jay Hooker
Response to the TN Attorney General
Response to the TN Attorney General

More info:

Published by: John Jay Hooker on May 01, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/23/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE SPECIAL SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEEAT NASHVILLEJOHN JAY HOOKER, et al. ))Appellant/Petitioner, ))v. ) Case No. M2012-01299-SC-R11-CV)) On appeal from Davidson County) Circuit Court Case No. 12C735GOVERNOR BILL HASLAM, et al. ))Appellee/Respondent. ) ______________________________________________________________________________ 
REPLY TO THE BRIEF OF THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLEESSIGNED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ROBERT E. COOPER, JR. ON BEHALFOF HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE ET AL.FILED APPARENTLY WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE GOVERNOR OR THEOTHER DEFENDANTS WHO MUST HAVE KNOWN UNDER THEIR OATH TO
SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION THAT THE WORD “CHOSEN” IS IN THECONSTITUTION AND THAT IT IS A SYNONYM OF THE WORD “ELECTED,”WHICH WORD IS USED INTERCHANGABLY WITH THE WORD “CHOSEN”
ANDTHAT CONSEQUEN
TLY ALL “ELECTED” OFFICIALS UNDER THE PLAIN
LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTIUTION, INCLUDING JUDGES,
MUST BE “ELECTED”AND “CHOSEN”
ONLY BY THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE STATE FOR THESUPREME COURT OR THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE DISTRICT FOR THEINTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURTS AND A REPLY TO THE CLAIM THAT
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE JUDGES MAY BE “ELECTED” BY THE QUALIFIED
VOTERS OF THE STATE AND A REPLY TO THE CLAIM THAT THIS HONORABLECOURT NEED NOT RULE ON WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES ARECOMPETENT TO RULE IN THIS CASE NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THATTHE COURT APPEALS LACKED JURISDICTION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THATTWO OF THE THREE JUDGES HAD BEEN RETENTION ELECTED
 ______________________________________________________________________________ 
BACKGROUND
The
essence
of this lawsuit involves the question of whether or not the Legislature canmake provision for the Governor to
appoint
regular judges both for the Supreme Court and theintermediate appellate courts either for the full or unexpired terms, and therefore whether the
 
2
 
retention elections statute, Tenn. Code Ann. 17-4-101
et seq.
, which provides for a vote for the judges to be either 
 
retained
 
or 
 
replaced
,
is constitutional when tested against the plainlanguage of the Tennessee Constitution contained in Article VI, Sections 3 and 4 and Article VII,Sections 4 and 5, which provisions require that
“J
udges shall be
elected
by the qualified votersof the Sta
te or the qualified voters of the Circuit or District,”
and Article X, Section 1, whichstates,
“Every person who shall be „
chosen,
‟”
and Article VII, Section 5, which requires that any
“vacancy shall be filled at the next biennial election occurring more
than thirty days after the
vacancy occurs.”
  No challenge regarding the election of intermediate appellate judges has ever before, inany other case, been litigated, and consequently this case is before this Court as matter of 
firstimpression
.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge who held that only the votes of the
qualified voters of the District
should be counted, which holding by the Court of Appeals is areason for the Application for Permission to Appeal. Therefore, this case is not subject to a
res judicata
or 
 stare decisis
plea as it relates to intermediate appellate judge elections under Tenn.Code Ann. §17-4-114 and Article VI, Section 4.
ARGUMENT
REGARDING THE WORDS „”ELECTED” AND “CHOSEN”
 
In accordance with the above cited provisions, the fact is that the Appellant asserted inthe Brief of the Appellant in Support of the Application for Permission to Appeal the following:
“Any
impartial
analysis of the retention elections statute mustacknowledge that the statute provides for the
appointment
of all regular appellatecourt judges by the Governor, which circumstance is in direct conflict with theTennessee Constitution, because, on the other hand, the Constitution requires thatall appellate judges (as opposed to special judges
appointed
under Article VI)
must be „
elected
 
and „
chosen
 
 by the qualified voters of the State or „District inwhich they are assigned‟ pursuant to Article VI
, Sections 3 and 4, Article VII,Sections 4 and 5, and Article X, Section 1. [See Appendix] Consequently under 
the Tennessee Constitution, there can be retention election where the voters‟ onlychoice is to „retain or replace‟ the judge, as under the aforesaid provisions, the
 
3
 
qualified voters are entitled to „
choose
‟ and „
elect
‟ their judges both
for the fullterms and the unexpired terms. How can any judge
honestly
and
impartially
sayotherwise in the light of the plain language of the cited constitutional provisions?
 To that claim, the Attorney General responded in his Brief on behalf of the Governor 
et al.
with the following language. Brief of the Defendants-Appellants, page 20:
In construing a constitutional provision, courts may look to three criteria: the textof the language used, the history of the provisions and similar provisions fromother states. As this Court has stated:The text of a constitutional provision is the primary guide to the provision's purpose.
Cleveland Surgery Ctr., L.P. v. Bradley Cnty. Mem'l Hosp.,
30 S.W.3d at282;
 Hatcher v. Bell 
, 521 S.W.2d 799, 803 (Term. 1974). We must interpretconstitutional provisions in a principled way that attributes plain and ordinarymeaning to their words,
 Barrett v. Term. Occupational Safety and Health ReviewComm'n,
284 S.W.3d 784, 787 (Tenn.2009);
Gaskin v. Collins
, 661 S.W.2d 865,867 (Tenn.1983), and that takes into account the history, structure, and underlyingvalues of the entire document.
Cleveland Surgery Ctr., L.P. v. Bradley County Mem'l Hosp.,
30 S.W.3d at 282.All constitutional provisions are entitled to equal respect. Thus, when called uponto construe a particular provision, the Court must consider the entire instrument,
 Barrett v. Tenn. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n,
284 S.W.3d at787;
State v. Martin
, 940 S.W.2d 567, 570 (Tenn.1997), and must harmonize itsvarious provisions in order to give effect to them all.
State ex rel. Higgins v. Dunn
, 496 S.W.2d 480, 487 (Tenn. 1973);
Shelby Cnty. v. Hale
, 200 Tenn. 503,511, 292 S.W.2d 745, 748^9 (1956). No constitutional provision should beconstrued to impair or destroy another provision.
Vollmer v. City of Memphis
, 792S.W.2d 446, 448 (Tenn. 1990);
 Patterson v. Washington County
, 136 Tenn. 60,66, 188 S.W. 613, 614 (1916).
 Estate of Bell v. Shelby County Health Care Corp.,
318 S.W.3d 823, 835 (Tenn.2010).
 Astonishingly, however 
untruthfully
,
the Attorney General in footnote 6 on page 20 of his Brief on behalf of himself, the Governor of Tennessee, all appellate judges of Tennessee, theSpeaker of both Houses of the Legislature,
et al.
apparently with or without the
consent
of each of the aforementioned Defendants, under his own signature, makes the following chargeagainst this fellow lawyer:

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->