Did Deval give us a ‘hippie’ on the state’s highest court?

david.yas@exhibitAnews.com

“It is the governor’s constitutional right to nominate as many hippies to the bench as he wishes.”

That’s how one politician derisively reacted to Deval Patrick’s nomination of Margot Botsford to Massachusetts’ highest court.

A “hippie” on our highest court? What’s going on here?

Well, let’s back up a moment.

Nominating judges is one of the governor’s most important duties.

But does a governor get to pick whomever he wants, without limitation?

Not exactly. A somewhat obscure eight-person elected panel called the Governor’s Council provides the final check on a judge nominee.

As it happens, Botsford is known as a great intellect and had been rumored many times in the past to be a good fit for the high-level type of cases heard by the Supreme Judicial Court.

A swift confirmation was expected at the Governor’s Council, a panel that plays an important role but rarely rejects a nominee. Governors are careful to appoint only candidates with top-notch resumes, and Botsford was no exception.

Councilor Mary-Ellen Manning, who fancies herself as something of a rabble-rouser, charged that Botsford was “soft on crime” as a judge and cited her husband, S. Stephen Rosenfeld, as making campaign contributions to Patrick.

Manning, the councilor who expressed concern at the number of “hippies” Patrick might appoint, said, “She outed herself as the judicial activist she is: a jurist who will favor the predator rather than the prey, and if the law doesn’t afford her the necessary discretion, she will change the law.”

Manning was particularly concerned that Botsford, as a Superior Court judge, had given a defendant in a sex-abuse case a medium-level sentence rather than the maximum sentence suggested by prosecutors.

But a “hippie”?

Margot Botsford is about as buttoned-down and professional as one gets. She has been a well-regarded judge for 18 years and has written masterfully detailed decisions.

The problem is that, in Massachusetts, sometimes politicians like to hear themselves talk. And they love screaming about judges who are “soft on crime” because it makes them sound tough and decisive.

Sadly, this is typical for Manning, a shallow loudmouth whose speeches are getting old.

Once, she even cast the lone vote against Superior Court Judge Thomas J. Curley, who was seeking early retirement on a disability after having been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and an aggressive course of treatment failed. “There are sad stories throughout the government,” she said. “I believe this is illegal.”

Here’s the thing: The point of an independent judicial branch is to have people who think independently. One cannot expect to agree with every decision of every judge. All of Botsford’s decisions have been 100 percent legal.

Manning says of the council’s role: “What we’re trying to do is gauge what a lifetime appointment would look like. … [The governor] can nominate anybody he wants, but we have to do what we consider to be in the best interests of the people.”

I think Manning should calm down and let the governor build a judiciary. Then again, don’t listen to me. I once went to a rock concert. I could be a hippie.