So like, it's not like, what purpose is it if it's just going to approve whatever the governor says? And the other is that like, what does it do? Like, why does it even matter? Like the governor makes an appointment in most places, a Senate or whatever, some other sort of body um does the work like why this weird why do we keep this archaic thing from the founding of of the sort of massachusetts constitution um as one of the complaints so like you know when you think about the job like why why should we care and why is it that you guys you know more than just perfunctory i guess is the question

yeah i hear both those things uh you're right and um I mean, they're very separate things in my mind, but I'll start with the second one first.

I have heard people push back and we should abolish the governor's council.

It's archaic.

But as much as I am always the kind of person who comes at things with things can always improve and looking for you know, what are the problems? What are the solutions? Let's make things better.

When you step back a second and look at how we do it, what option would be better? Would elected judges actually serve our state better? That's so much more political.

If a judge has to be concerned about their next election when they're sitting on the bench and giving opinions that could be held up as a reason they don't get reelected, I don't see that serving justice uh, better than currently, or if it kicks over to the Senate in the way that we do it federally for having the Senate give their advice and consent, that's not less political than, than, you know, so, and not to mention, you know, they're pretty busy already.

They don't need to be re-traumatized by a judge who has some kind of like tough love mentality or like just as like, oh, like temperament really, really matters in a very tangible way to the folks going through our court system.