Ralph Gants for SJC

Superior Court Judge Ralph Gants appeared before the Governor's Council on Wednesday, answering questions before the Council members vote on his nomination to the Supreme Judicial Court.

The article in The Boston Globe covering this is 110 words and offers no specifics on the questioning. The article is here.

The article in The Lowell Sun did a much better job, at 416 words. The reporter is Matt Murphy and the article is here. This article lists some of the issues that came up during Judge Gants' appearance.

The Worcester Telegraph had an article of 646 words. By Lee Hammel, the article focuses on the case of then police sergeant Timothy J O'Conner, who Judge Gants labeled a liar in court.

One would have thought that the Massachusetts paper of record would have been a little more serious about this appointment to our Supreme Judicial Court and could have come up with more than 110 words. Maybe they were in the tank for Judge Gants.

The Lowell Sun article says:

On his judicial philosophy, Gants said he has great respect for legislative intent when reviewing laws and views the state Constitution as a "living, breathing document" that must be adapted over time to changes in society.

OK, if the Commonwealth's Constitution is a "living, breathing document," what criteria do we use to allow it to adapt to changes in society over time? It seems to me it would be good to know the answer to that from someone being nominated to the SJC.

I sent Mr Murphy an EMail, asking if any such criteria had come up. He responded "Not exactly. It came at the end of his opening statement. Outside the constitution, he did say he would respect "legislative intent" when interpreting law."

One previous decision of Judge Gants that came up was his decision regarding a person with four drunk driving convictions that Judge Gants allowed to use his car to go to medical appointments--the guy got to keep his license.

One question with that decision, and others like it by government agencies is who pays if things go wrong? Let us ask ourselves about what happens if this convicted drunk driver, on his way to the doctor, is a little high (read drunk) and hits a pregnant woman, pushing a pram and holding the hand of her 5 year old daughter, in a recently painted crosswalk. Tragically, all of them die. Can the widower sue Judge Gants for letting this guy out and about with his driver's license? Can he sue the state for this bad call? I doubt it in both cases.

Maybe Judge Gants will do a great job on the SJC, but it seems to me a nomination to the SJC is worth more attention than it got from The Globe.

Regards -- Cliff