Court to Governor's Council: Don't pester us with idle, hypothetical questions

The Supreme Judicial Court today refused to answer a question from the Governor's Council on whether the council could order people before it for judicial nominations to tell the truth.

In an "answer" to the council, an obscure elected board that dates to colonial days that gets to grill prospective judges, the state's highest court said the council failed to prove the issue had actually come up, that the five members who signed the question failed to show they had consulted the three other members about asking the court about the matter and that the council really should get to know Attorney General Martha Coakley, whose office is full of lawyers versed in constitutional issues.

The court said the separation of powers enumerated in the state constitution requires justices to tread very lightly on issues of how the executive branch of government runs its affairs and to consider such affairs only on serious matters arising from "solemn" instances:

There is nothing in what has been presented to us indicating that the Council has ever placed a witness at a confirmation hearing under oath, or has ever attempted to do so. Nor has it been communicated to us that there is any present desire of, or perceived need for, the Council to administer oaths in upcoming confirmation hearings. As presented, therefore, the question is hypothetical and does not address a present duty. ... In addition, the request does not indicate that the Council harbors any "serious doubts" as to its "power and authority" to administer oaths. ... The Councillors who made the request have not referenced a statute or constitutional provision that, in their eyes, would prevent (or authorize) the administration of an oath.

• Complete Answer of the Justices to the Council