Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Electing Justice Roush to the Supreme Court of Virginia
View through CrossRef
In late April 2015, the Supreme Court of Virginia announced that Justice LeRoy F. Millette, Jr. would retire on July 31, 2015. Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe expeditiously created an open process for tapping a worthy successor. At July’s conclusion, the Governor appointed Fairfax County Circuit Judge Jane Marum Roush, an experienced, consensus jurist. On a Sunday night, merely two days after Roush swore her oath of office, Republican General Assembly leaders proclaimed their caucuses’ intention to elect another individual, despite conceding that Roush was very qualified. During the August special session, this concerted GOP endeavor prompted a Republican senator to join Democrats who opposed the prospect and concomitantly adjourned. GOP leaders then contended that legislators remained in session, as the Virginia Constitution explicitly prescribes Senate and House of Delegates consent to adjourn. The Governor’s Counsel next penned an opinion that concluded that lawmakers had adjourned, so McAuliffe could appoint Justice Roush to the Court again, a choice that he implemented thirty days after adjournment. Because these efforts precipitated a constitutional standoff and will consequently plague future judicial selection, they warrant analysis. The initial part of this Article chronicles the rise and evolution of Virginia court selection. Part Two scrutinizes recent machinations, determining that the procedures now merit improvement. The last section proffers suggestions. For the near term, the Assembly ought to promptly elect Roush. She brings twenty-two years of judicial service, including over five months as a justice. Moreover, Roush’s removal for reasons unrelated to her abilities, earlier performance, or future capacity to serve would make a mockery of the selection regime, undermining citizen respect for it, the whole state judiciary, as well as the Governor and the Assembly. Across the longer term, the Commonwealth must evaluate and initiate changes that will enhance selection.
Title: Electing Justice Roush to the Supreme Court of Virginia
Description:
In late April 2015, the Supreme Court of Virginia announced that Justice LeRoy F.
Millette, Jr.
would retire on July 31, 2015.
Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe expeditiously created an open process for tapping a worthy successor.
At July’s conclusion, the Governor appointed Fairfax County Circuit Judge Jane Marum Roush, an experienced, consensus jurist.
On a Sunday night, merely two days after Roush swore her oath of office, Republican General Assembly leaders proclaimed their caucuses’ intention to elect another individual, despite conceding that Roush was very qualified.
During the August special session, this concerted GOP endeavor prompted a Republican senator to join Democrats who opposed the prospect and concomitantly adjourned.
GOP leaders then contended that legislators remained in session, as the Virginia Constitution explicitly prescribes Senate and House of Delegates consent to adjourn.
The Governor’s Counsel next penned an opinion that concluded that lawmakers had adjourned, so McAuliffe could appoint Justice Roush to the Court again, a choice that he implemented thirty days after adjournment.
Because these efforts precipitated a constitutional standoff and will consequently plague future judicial selection, they warrant analysis.
The initial part of this Article chronicles the rise and evolution of Virginia court selection.
Part Two scrutinizes recent machinations, determining that the procedures now merit improvement.
The last section proffers suggestions.
For the near term, the Assembly ought to promptly elect Roush.
She brings twenty-two years of judicial service, including over five months as a justice.
Moreover, Roush’s removal for reasons unrelated to her abilities, earlier performance, or future capacity to serve would make a mockery of the selection regime, undermining citizen respect for it, the whole state judiciary, as well as the Governor and the Assembly.
Across the longer term, the Commonwealth must evaluate and initiate changes that will enhance selection.
Related Results
On the Status of Rights
On the Status of Rights
Photo by Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash
ABSTRACT
In cases where the law conflicts with bioethics, the status of rights must be determined to resolve some of the tensions. ...
Analysis of the Constitutional Court Cases in 2022
Analysis of the Constitutional Court Cases in 2022
The Constitutional Court received a total of 2,829 cases in 2022 alone. Among the decisions made by the Constitutional Court in 2022, this paper reviews major decisions centered on...
To Ban or Not to Ban : The Supreme Court and Obscenity
To Ban or Not to Ban : The Supreme Court and Obscenity
Since 1957, the United States Supreme Court has exhibited a marked shift in its attitude toward freedom of expression. This shift may be directly attributed to changes in the Court...
Keadilan Restoratif: Upaya Menemukan Keadilan Substantif?
Keadilan Restoratif: Upaya Menemukan Keadilan Substantif?
Substantive justice is an idea of justice that seeks to present it comprehensively and completely in society. Substantive justice in this case does not only interpret the law as li...
John Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens
This book examines the judicial opinions and criminal justice policy impact of Justice John Paul Stevens, the U.S. Supreme Court’s most prolific opinion author during his...
Autonomy on Trial
Autonomy on Trial
Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash
Abstract
This paper critically examines how US bioethics and health law conceptualize patient autonomy, contrasting the rights-based, individualist...
Why the supreme court of Ghana erred on the proper application of the doctrine of vicarious liability in its recent decision in Kwadwo Appiah v. Kwabena Anane
Why the supreme court of Ghana erred on the proper application of the doctrine of vicarious liability in its recent decision in Kwadwo Appiah v. Kwabena Anane
The Common law has evolved in leaps and bounds since the Normans Conquest of 1066. Certain areas of private law including the tort of negligence have developed into settled doctrin...
Mengembalikan Kewibawaan Mahkamah Agung Sebagai Peradilan Yang Agung
Mengembalikan Kewibawaan Mahkamah Agung Sebagai Peradilan Yang Agung
Authority, protection, legal certainty and justice are absolute requirements for a country which is based on law. All judges should endeavor to harmonize justice based on the provi...

