OCR Text |
Show THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 1971 THE DAILY RECORD paue six attitude of voters elsewhere. Water Service Agreements think the main opinion's dogma about retirement being a way of life is glued to the roof of its mouth, irrespective of the main opinion's remark that it is not as "sticky" as supposed. If such philosophy be infallible, it should find its bourn in the legislative halls, the Governor's Office, the Treasurer's Office, the Auditor's Office, the Secretary of State's Office and the Attorney General's Office, - in either of which, under the constitution and laws of this State, octogenarians or nonagenarians, - who may be as senile, I think, as judges, - are perfectly free to impose their senility on the body politic, - but not judges, the only elected, or presumably elected public officials singled out for pasteurization or pasturization. Had the decision in this case been the law of the land a few years back, the gems of I wisdom and truth of Oliver Wendell Holmes never would have found their way to the galley proofs of history, and the international impact of Roscoe Pound on the Bench and Bar would have been lost to history in the superficial printer's ink pronouncing an artificial and unrealistic senility by legislative fiat. Jordan School Diet Butler Jr High School 9361 So State, Ssndy; 7530 So 2700 Ej S 49-7-- 1. M stretch of one's imagination can attaining the age of 70 be construed to be the conduct of a judge because of that fact. All this age bit has to do with conduct, relates, if at all, back to the good conduct or misconduct of a couple of people three and a half score years before, with the assistance of a cell or two. The opinion's reasoning is not warranted lexically, and appears to be a gratuitous non sequitur. By no The amendment's other language negates the gist of this decision. It provides for a review by this court "as to both law and facts." If the main opinion will not tamper with that provision, and refrain from saying that there is no merit to the urgence that it means what it says, it would seem that this case becomes infected with some sort of juridical ridiculosity, because if the age of the judge is the only basis for retirement, and that fact is reviewable by this court, it would seem to be somewhat puerile for five grown men to don black robes and call for an "Oyez, " only to appear quite silly in examining a birth certificate or one's varicose veins. Besides, the plain language leaves the entire matter of mandatory retirement up to the Supreme Court, not the Legislature. If the deserved praise so justly heaped upon Judge Nelson in the main opinion is not something other than faint, this court should sustain him in his election based on those laudatory facts, stipulated to, by both sides of this case and by all their lawyers, based on the law which I think is so clearly expressed, and upon the facts as provided for review on Sec. 28, Art. VIII, Constitution of Utah. of lost its resonance later in the main opinion by a lengthy lift-o- ut an opinion written by Judge Nelson which seems to serve no useful purpose save to discredit the position he takes in this case. I appreciate profoundly the kudo for loquacity bestowed upon me by my learned colleague of the majority, but must remark that this opinion loquacious wise, is comparable and as unsurpassed as this dissent, and quite as rattly, -so I return it to him for placement wherever he is wont to place kudoee. Reference was made to 8, U.C.A. 1953 (1969 Pocket Supp. 190) in of In the main opinion. support passing I simply comment that I have gone on record in an April 28, 1970, minute entry, as questioning that section's constitutionality after Rampton v. Barlow, 23 Utah 2d 383, 464 P. 2d 378 (1970). 49-7-- The author of the main opinion takes me to task, and perhaps rightly so, for language used that seemed offensive. I have deleted or rephrased a few sequences here and there, but feel so strongly about my position that I cannot of hope to please those whose views are antithetical with the most words. I am sure, however, that my friend is dead wrong and quite as sarcastic when he says that I failed to consider constitutional principles of law. That is the severest cut of all. What I failed to consider was the constitutional sensibilities of my worthy opponent in this quite debatable debate. soft-spok- C. J. Callister, also. , l60 OM S Mrs Geo Wharton 4949 Stanford Lane; 426 Navajo Str S Sadller 1st So1 E R D Tucker 4670 Fortins Way Jess B 4783 Idlewild Cr Mall 4883 Platis Wallace Lane S Keith 333 Haspton Ave 218 218 416 Bryan Are 21st K Martin 526 Kensington Ave Griffin C OM R N R K S So; Clif; Co Dan Muir 1166 1004 7th No; 4th No; W W K Larry Jade Buckley 2746 S 7160 So, OM S 1241 Baglay Beth Purdue 1829 So State; 0M 817 So 1st W; S J Frank Vega 769 Denver Jerry V E Qalr Mrs S 0M E S 47 50 Str. Temple; 0M Tenple; S C W 320 W C OM S Olsen Ka urine Carman W C Laird OM Princeton Harold K S Lehner Box 635, Park City; OM Ave Adams 1541 W; S 2276 Rdondo Av M Ave Brown Ave Elaine Jr Curtis Rex 3007 So 1845 E Richard W Aposhian 4084 Aposhian Cr; C R OM 1831 E 3170 So; OM S S 115 George Lake BLvd Str N 1861 MoGlnley W Lane Ffclls, Ida; Steven 172 Jr Jefferson; OM S 7258 So 1600 E; St No Temple Medical Dev Corp 2445 Jetway Ave "lue 932 p 0 Box 155 t Evergreen, Colo; 921 Sandy; Merle Eskelaon Church E So E No Keith Waite Qiris 1661 Denny's Restaurant OM W St 7th State, 7006 So Ut Transit Authority No E Kinder L Twin 526 all 17th 1800 E 7200 So; John E Leverich 1510 Bryan Ave; Henry G Tempest Church 120 No Main 33rd So 7160 So W Jordan; 3670 So; S Harold McKee S V H Bod 9361 So W Etana Howard 569 W 3rd No LDS Petersen Thorup Chas M Neve 1667 Beok Str King OM Jordan School Diet Ridgecrest School OM OM S Orson M Chideste 2531 Melbourne St; OM 2929 Melbourne Str; S I Lula A Hampjtcn 225 Reed Ave 1330 Beck Pres Bishopries Office S Jack Buckley W Jordan; OM 1841 E 17th So. Ut Transit Authority 2545 E 3210 So; 0M 1094 Windsor Str; S LDS Str; W OM 2311 So 6; OM Ooatsville Ave; S 1300 Bede 1061 Atkin Ave Ferre 1215 Parkway; 2531 Douglas Jordan; Randy E Danick 1046 Lorraine Ave W R Warversck 1249 Gilmer Dr A 3670 So; Jade Buckley 2756 W 7160 So; 1237 E 3670 0; 647 American Beauty Dr Bsp J A fbrre 1215 Parkway; OK 2537 Dougals Str; E V S Cortez; Jams Hafeman 357 E 33rd So G 702 Dr J Gender 2059 Logan Ave S 814 So Main; OK 31 E 13th So; S 71 It Rd Jess MOrris 1933 Tartan Ave Allen Electric, Alhambra, Invest K 649 No 2nd David D Strong 2992 E 4430 So; OM 282 - 284 A Downlngton Ave; eo Field crest In Richard Carlson Kenneth J Lloyd 212 Ramona Ave Allan HLycker Beth Purdue 122 No 2nd W; 554 No 2nd W; 440 Romcna Ave No E 17th So 1584 Meadow Moor Show 318 276 Jr 21st No e Box 464; 11173; S Robert Backmann Dr A K R Buell Franks 1755 Virginia Hills Box L D E Davind Dr Jones 343 Blaine Ave 0 I Lucille E Uddle Hlllcrest Ae Daniel H Emery 446 Blaine Ave P OM S 1859 Lloyd Isabelle L 2010 E Wallace J Arnold Sr John S 2173 luma Str; OM 2060 Wilmington Ave; 574 Downingtcn Ave 6955 Carlson W 6th Ave; Karl Michael Thoapson So Vhittaker A Burg on 2269 E 17th So 547 So 11th E M S Mary Dolores Raso 559 So 9th V Gary 7910 OM Robert J Anderson 1570 So 23rd E Str Ira M - 831 Gardiner L Haywood Robert W Kordloh 3207 Phillips, Butte Montana; So 2311 Lake Maynes 2nd No; 0M 20 W 2nd NOl W Robert Billy Johnson E 13th Leonard Carole Brldgefbrth 863 D 145 So OM Zions Sec Cbrp Att P 10 E So Tenple; OM 165 W 1st No; S Miller W Robert Timothy Bis sell 2059 Renior Cr; 678O So 2030 E; ELgan 1427 So 2nd Water Service Agreements 2756 1247 Narva Wharton 4949 Stanford Lane; 0 1356 Pacific Ave; S E Gary William 3119 OM W C Tuckett, Ellett and Crockett, JJ. , having disqualified themselves, do no participate herein. Bsp George D Wharton 4949 So 2590 e; OM 1020 So 14th W; S L Sorenson Dooley Ct; I65 Dooley Ct en concurs in the views expressed by Mr. Justice Henriod. R eo Dailey Stevenson 1236 dlendalA Dr Walker Bk A Tr P 0 Box 1169 TTust Dept; 1950 So 11th E S 1 The main opinion, with the suavity of a sequestered brook, as to the urgence that this language means what it says, simply but with little substance or documentation, says "There is no merit to such contention." Its reason: : "Mandatory retirement is not to be equated with removal for misconduct. 'I No one said otherwise. It is not a question of equating anything with anything else, - it is a matter of interpreting clear, unambiguous, meaningful and understandable English, and there is no justification for what I think is a cii cumlocutious rape of the body of English language. P H is claimed to implement, in clear, understandable English, without any reference of any kind with respect to age of retirement, interdicts and cautions that "Legislation implementing this section shall be applicable only to conduct. " I repeat, "applicable only to conduct. " The amendment which OM Charles E Atkinson 3961 So 3210 Caldwell Edward L 1212 Glendale Dr Taylor 1559 Cherokee Or Dumont Oorp 62 W 33tkl So; 6920 S OM Brookhill Dr Wssley Sund 985 E Union Ave; S 985 E 7200 So; OM l 1 |