Judiciary Hearing Provides Opportunity to Shine a Light on Supreme Court Mayhem.

Chief Justice Chase Rogers appears before the legislature’s Judiciary Committee Friday for hearing on her renomination to a second term in the top job in the high court. There’ll be a lot of testimony on the court system’s guardian ad litem program, which has attracted intense criticism from a well-organized group of unhappy parents.

A broader swath of lawyers, judges and court observers will be interested in the committee probing the operation of the court under Chief Justice Rogers’ leadership. They’ll look forward to questions on the extraordinary amount of time it takes at least one member of the court to produce an opinion. Why does she continue to assign opinions to him?

Committee members will render a public service if they ask why Rogers signed on to what has become known as the notorious footnote 69 in the recent Richard Lapointe decision. That was the gratuitous insult hurled at Justice Espinosa over her dissent by the 4-member majority. They accused Justice Espinosa of dishonoring the court in her opinion.

The Lapointe decision was more than a forcefully argued decision by disagreeing justices. It revealed open warfare among the justices. What has Rogers done to restore civility to the court? What are the elements of dishonor? Maybe she will give the committee a three prong test she applies to conclude and announce that a colleague has dishonored the court in a dissenting opinion.

Compared to some of her predecessors, Rogers is a remote figure to legislators. Her most sustained effort was years of lobbying during difficult budget years for pay increases through the establishment of an anti-democratic commission. Committee members may want to ask why Rogers has presided over so many staff members earning higher salaries than judges in frontline courthouses.

Rogers could get a heaping helping of free inquiry by elected officials tomorrow.