Two basic philosophies have developed in the legal and judicial professions. The first believes that judges are limited to finding the written law, finding out as best they can what those who wrote and voted for the law, either in the legislatures or the constitutional conventions, intended for it to mean, and enforcing that meaning, leaving to elected legislators the making of necessary social and legal changes. The other believes that, regardless of what those who wrote and those who voted for the law intended, it is merely a general guideline which the judge is free to interpret as he or she sees fit, in accordance with the judge's own sense of what the law ought to be and consistent with "modern trends."
For the last 30 years or so, most of the members of our state Supreme Court have followed the latter view of their job. For example, they have found a "right to privacy" in our state constitution. Presumably they found such a right simply because they thought it is a good thing, which in some forms it may very well be. It is not intended here to dispute that point. However, nowhere in the state constitution is any such thing mentioned, and it is impossible to see how the constitutional conventions could have intended it to be in there. But our state Supreme Court not only found it but found it to be greater than the one the U.S. Supreme Court invented.
To those would say that they like the results of such judicial methods, the proper reply would be that they are missing the point. Even dictators may make decisions and bring about results which we like. But it should be remembered that the same methods may be used someday to make up rules which we do not like and never would have voted for.
This philosophy, which our Supreme Court has adopted, has been applied by them also to the customary, or "common," law. The court has consistently found new ways for people to sue each other. Children may now sue their parents, gas stations may be sued for selling gas to intoxicated persons who are enabled thereby to later cause auto accidents, shopping centers may be sued for the actions of criminals who come onto their parking lots, and the police can be sued for wrecks caused by chasing fleeing criminals.
Everyone pays the price of lawsuits, including the loss to the labor force of witnesses attending trials, the cost of creating more courts, the cost of attorney fees, and the increase in product costs and insurance rates.
The court has not hesitated to change some of its own carefully thought-out rulings only some 20 years after they were made as well as interpretation of legislation settled for over 100 years.
No longer can our Tennessee Supreme Court judges, when up for a vote on their reelection, say that all they do is enforce the laws which others have made. As long as any feel free to make new laws themselves, they may properly be asked by the voters whether they intend to continue to do so and, if so, what laws they intend to make. The U.S. Supreme Court held a few years ago that, in effect, if some states, such as Tennessee, are going to make politicians of their judges by electing them, the candidates have the right to be asked and to say what they stand for.
Robert Lanier is a retired Circuit Court judge.