Judge's ruling expected Friday in Supreme Court controversy

Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle to rule by end of week on Supreme Court selection process

Email | Print By Ken Whitehouse

Davidson County Chancellor heard oral arguments today in the ongoing controversy over how Justices of the Tennessee Supreme Court are selected. After hearing the arguments, she surprised almost all gathered in the courtroom by saying that she would have a ruling by Friday.

The overarching issue being debated is who can be considered by Gov. Phil Bredesen to fill the last vacany on the Tennessee Supreme Court. The high court's only African-American jurist, A. A. Birch, retired in August.

Deputy Attorney General Janet Kleinfelter argued on behalf of Bredesen, stating that members of the Tennessee Judicial Selection Commission had not given the governor a complete list because they have recommended Covington attorney J. Houston Gordon twice. Bredesen already has rejected Gordon once.

Gordon's attorney, Charles W. Bone, in effect called for a "do-over" of the whole process. He stated that when Davidson County Chancellor Richard Dinkins pulled out of consideration from the first panel, Bredesen did not have a full list of three recommendations from the selection commission, thus the rejection and the panel was incomplete.

Arguing on behalf of Memphis attorney George T. "Buck" Lewis III, John Hicks of Nashville stated that the only reason that Lewis was passed over was because he is caucasian. Lewis was on a panel rejected by Bredesen, with one of the stated reasons for rejection being a "need for diversity."

Former Judge Ben Cantrell represented the Tennessee Judicial Selection Commission, which questioned the legality of Bredesen's rejection of its first panel and that affirmed the right of the commission to renominate Gordon.

While Lyle stated that she would hand down her opinion by Friday, it could be a while before this thing is over. Bone hinted in his arguments that Gordon could appeal the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court or file motions that would require Bredesen or his staff to testify about the reasons that the first panel was rejected.