Who judges the judges?
With the judicial branch increasingly in the spotlight, how judges are chosen and held accountable has never mattered more. To kick of Season Seven, Governors Bredesen and Haslam sat down with Tennessee Supreme Court Chief Justice Holly Kirby, former Justice Sharon Lee, and former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to discuss judicial elections, ethics, and explore whether reforms are needed to preserve the independence of the judiciary and public trust.
The episode was recorded in front of a live audience at the Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law at the University of Memphis in August 2025.
Subscribe and follow You Might be Right wherever you get your audio content – including Apple Podcasts and Spotify – to never miss an episode, or sign up for our email list to receive new episodes straight to your inbox each week here.
“It’s the perception that is problematic”
The conversation began by reminding listeners of the role, responsibilities, and selection processes for judges at each level.
Gonzales, who today serves as the Dean of the College of Law at Belmont University, offered his perspective that judges are being criticized by perceptual concerns of bias that stem from things like costly judicial campaigns at the local and state level and disagreements about the outcome of judicial rulings.
In reference to judicial elections, Gonzales remarked, “to ask for money from individuals, corporations, companies that might have business before the court. While I really don’t think, 99% of judges, they’re not influenced in any way by those kinds of contributions. It’s the perception that is problematic.”
Diving deeply into the differences between judicial elections and appointments, how cases are chosen to be heard, and the roles of local, state, and federal courts, he pulled on his personal experience as US Attorney General when facing the US Supreme Court. “One of the great lessons I learned from that experience,” he shared, “is, the Court is very independent with respect to those kinds of decisions.”
“Judges don’t make the policy decisions about the laws that they have to enforce.”
Chief Justice Kirby underscored a key distinction often overlooked in political debate: judges interpret and apply the law, but they are not the ones setting policy. Maintaining this separation, she notes, is essential to preserving checks and balances.
What is the role of the courts in the separation of powers? Kirby—and the other guests—took care to note that the courts are bound by the laws set and the legislatures have an equal role in the balance of power.
“Government actors should stay in their lane, within their branch as much as possible. But it also is important for government actors, and especially judges, to fully occupy their lane, to step up to the responsibility to call it out when the other branches are verging beyond appropriate limits under the Constitution,” she later remarked. “If that does not happen, if other government actors view the Constitution as just a suggestion, then the courts have to enforce it.”
“When people lose faith in the courts, we’ve got a real problem.”
Conversation shifted to the independence of the judiciary. Former Justice Lee highlighted the stakes for democracy itself, warning that the judiciary’s legitimacy depends on the public’s belief that cases are decided on law and facts—not politics.
What is your message about respecting the integrity and independence of the courts? Guests noted the tensions that exist between powers but stated that without the three branches working independently of each other, we are worse off.
Justice Kirby mentioned that a new threat to the independence has emerged, alluding to the physical safety of justices. “Our judges in Tennessee are facing exactly that kind of threat,” she cautioned, “not in political cases, but when people see that kind of discourse from a national perspective, it gives them permission, if they are dissatisfied with what a judge has done in their case, it makes it that judge fair game and fair game to act on it. That is a real threat to the independence of judges.”
“It’s a self-inflicted wound”
The episode ended with the guests pointing out opportunities for reform. Both Lee and Gonzales spoke directly about the need for a binding code of conduct for judges.
“The code of ethics needs to be binding and enforceable, and we don’t have that, and that filters down to judges at every level,” stated Lee.
Further conversation on judicial reform hit on the need for transparency in rulings and proceedings, with special note for allowances to safeguard privacy and ensuring authenticity from those in the system.
For more on this topic, listen to previous YMBR episodes Can We Still Count on the Separation of Powers? (Season Six) and Can the Supreme Court be Impartial? (Season Five).
Join the conversation on Twitter by following @UTBakerSchool, @PhilBredesen, and @BillHaslam.
Subscribe and follow You Might be Right wherever you get your audio content – including Apple Podcasts and Spotify – to never miss an episode, or sign up for our email list to receive new episodes straight to your inbox each week here.
