Governor Charlie Baker nominated Boston Municipal Court Judge Serge Georges to the Supreme Judicial Court last week, adding to another two nominations in recent months. If his nominees are confirmed by the Governor's Council, that will mean Baker has had the virtually unprecedented chance to fill all seven of the court seats. GBH Morning Edition host Joe Mathieu spoke with Northeastern University law professor and GBH News legal analyst Daniel Medwed about the nominations and what they mean for the state's highest court in the coming years. The transcript below has been edited for clarity.
Joe Mathieu: We're taking a break from voter fraud and President Trump this week, if you don't mind.
Daniel Medwed: I think that's wonderful.
Mathieu: Tell us about Judge Georges' background, for starters.
Medwed: Sure. So on the one hand, he's a very well regarded trial judge at the district court level. That's a lower trial court in the Commonwealth that handles misdemeanors, less serious felonies and some civil cases. And he's renowned not just for his legal skills — his acumen — but also for the generosity of his spirit. He treats everyone in his courthouse with the utmost respect and kindness. He's Haitian-American, hails from Dorchester and went to Suffolk Law School. He has a wealth of practice experience from his days before the bench, including at least a smattering of experience as a criminal defense lawyer in the private sector. Now, on the other hand, it's a little bit of an outside the box pick by Baker because district court judges are seldom, if ever, elevated to the SJC without at least a pit stop at the superior court level — that's the higher trial court in Massachusetts — or the Mass appeals court. But I think that's what makes this such a brilliant choice because Georges' experience in the trenches at the Boston Municipal Court will inform the SJC deliberations, make sure that it's not too rarified [or] too much of an ivory tower, which is always a risk for a state supreme court. I also think, for what it's worth, that he'll sail through the confirmation process with the governor's counsel, as will Baker's other nominee this month, Dalila Argaez Wendlandt.
Mathieu: So assuming both are confirmed, Daniel, where does that leave the court as a whole right now?
Medwed: That's an interesting point. So for one thing, it's the most diverse court in the SJC's 300-plus year history. We'll have three people of color on a seven person court, including our chief justice, an African-American woman named Kimberly Budd. For another thing, it's a very young court. Georges, Budd and Argaez Wendlandt are all in their early 50s and none of the other four justices are older than 61. Given that the mandatory retirement age in Massachusetts is 70, consider this: all seven justices have turned over. The entire court has turned over in the last four or five years, since 2016. But barring some unforeseen circumstance, this group of seven will operate as a collective without a single vacancy for the next decade almost, until 2029. That means it has this very unusual chance to put its stamp on Massachusetts law, and that stamp really has Charlie Baker's fingerprints all over it.
Mathieu: If Charlie Baker's fingerprints are all over the court, what does that mean going forward here in terms of future cases, Daniel?
Medwed: What I mean, I think, is that these justices very much reflect Baker's approach ideologically. He's no flame thrower, he's no radical and these justices aren't either. They're very talented, bright and thoughtful lawyers, but none of them are very far left of center. He has four former prosecutors on the bench. And even though I mentioned Georges' criminal defense experience, no one on the court is a former public defender, a former civil rights lawyer or anything like that. That's different to some extent from the composition of the court in recent years where former defense lawyers like Geraldine Hines helped play a role in moving the court in a direction that really made it a progressive beacon across the country.
Mathieu: We only have 30 seconds here, Daniel, but just to get to the point here, does that mean the court issues more conservative opinions?
Medwed: I don't think so. I just see more evolution rather than revolution. I mean, remember, this is the court that first blessed same sex marriage. This is the court that held that it's rational for an African-American teenager to flee the police in Boston given the epidemic of racial profiling. I just don't see dramatic decisions like that in the near term. I see lots of thoughtful, careful decisions that move the ball forward. But as I said, I see evolution, not revolution.
