Gov’s Council on a tear

...But one of the few glitches in the judicial appointment process is the often erratic conduct of the Governor’s Council.

When they’re not pressing judicial nominees on their religious beliefs or their child custody arrangements — yes, that has happened — they’re engaging in politicking that could threaten the integrity of the judicial nominating process. When will it stop?

Lately Councilors are grumpy over the influence of an independent panel of lawyers, which for decades has advised governors on the fitness of prospective judges. Recently the Council canceled a hearing on one of Gov. Charlie Baker’s nominees for the Superior Court, reportedly in a fit of pique over the influence of the Joint Bar Committee over a different nominee.

Governors nominate judicial candidates based on recommendations of their own advisers, who serve on a Judicial Nominating Commission. But when a nominee is selected an independent committee of two dozen lawyers, the Joint Bar Committee, makes a confidential recommendation on that nominee’s fitness for the bench. Governors take the committee’s recommendations seriously. It has served in this role since 1961.

When the committee apparently declined to offer its seal of approval to a Baker nominee for a district court judgeship, the governor chose not to submit that nomination to the Governor’s Council for approval. Some councilors threw a hissy fit, furious that an unelected committee had been granted a “secret veto.”

It seems some councilors believe they should have the right not just to approve judicial nominations — but to have a say over who actually gets nominated. See the second paragraph of this editorial. Heaven forbid.