Kentucky's first female chief justice credits Appalachian upbringing for her commitment to fairness
Kentucky 's first female chief justice said Tuesday that she's 'never given much thought to gender,' an outlook she attributed in part to her upbringing when she worked at her father's auto shop.
'I don't think you can expect good or bad decisions that I might make as chief (justice) to be either clouded or enhanced by my double X chromosomes,' said Chief Justice Debra Hembree Lambert. "They will simply be either good or bad decisions — and carefully made.'
Lambert was chosen by her colleagues on the state Supreme Court last year to succeed Laurance B. VanMeter after he opted not to seek reelection in 2024. Her Appalachian upbringing also forged her commitment to fairness and for everyone to have a voice, she said Tuesday.
Lambert also said that it's 'especially nice' to be part of the first female majority on Kentucky's Supreme Court. Kentucky's top leaders marked both milestones during a ceremony in the Supreme Court chambers. The event initially was set for January but a winter storm forced its rescheduling.
The contest last year to fill VanMeter's seat led to another milestone achievement, when Pamela R. Goodwine became the first Black woman elected to Kentucky's highest court. And she became the fourth woman on the seven-member court. A similar ceremony recognizing Goodwine's election is set for Friday. Both Lambert and Goodwine have already assumed their new roles.
Goodwine said Tuesday that she's inspired by Lambert's example as a trailblazer in the judiciary.
'Your leadership is a tribute to the progress we continue to make in building a judiciary that reflects the diversity and strength of our society,' Goodwine said.
When it was her turn to talk, Lambert said becoming the first woman chief justice 'I suppose is notable.'
'Truthfully, I've never given much thought to gender," Lambert said. "And perhaps that attitude came from where I was raised – the mountains of eastern Kentucky.'
That included the life lessons she learned while working at her father's auto body shop, including the time she had to replace the brake shoes in her car. Lambert said she told her dad she needed his help, having never done the task before. He responded by telling her to watch closely how she removed the old brake shoes and to put the new ones on the same way, she said.
As chief justice, Lambert said she'll be guided by her parents' philosophy to work hard, be joyful and fearless. She said her passion for people and justice developed during her Appalachian upbringing.
'When you grow up so modestly, you develop a strong sense of a need for a level playing field and for everyone to be heard," she said. "Those concepts are foundational in my worldview, and I hope you will be satisfied with my work performed as chief justice.'
Supreme Court Justice Michelle M. Keller said Tuesday that the court's process of interpreting and applying the rule of law hasn't changed now that women are the court's majority.
'Because first and foremost, the four women on this court are judges and lawyers,' Keller said. "And that's what we bring to this job. All seven of us bring that to this job. We all bring our personal experiences and our personal backgrounds.'
Kentucky's Democratic governor and the Republican leaders of the state House and Senate spoke about the historic milestones on the state's highest court.
Gov. Andy Beshear said the court holds a 'special responsibility' of upholding the law and sometimes defining it — 'and to do so without bias or favor to any person or to any party.'
The state's Supreme Court justices are elected in nonpartisan contests and, as a result, their job 'is to move our commonwealth not to the left or to the right but forward for all of our citizens," said Beshear, who is seen as a potential candidate for president in 2028.
'Our high court justices and the many people who support their important work make up the backbone of our democracy – the rule of law," the governor said. "This is the foundation of a functional system of government. One that's designed to serve the people and not merely the powerful.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Thousands who did not pass California bar exam get a chance to practice, for now
June 11 (Reuters) - More than 3,300 people who failed or withdrew from taking California's troubled February bar exam will have the option to work under the supervision of an experienced attorney while they wait to take the attorney licensing exam, the Supreme Court of California ruled on Wednesday. The court approved, opens new tab a request by the State Bar of California to extend an existing provisional licensure program enacted in 2020 when the bar exam was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which allows examinees to work under supervision for two years as they prepare to retake the test. An estimated 3,340 would be eligible for provisional licensure, according to the petition submitted by the state bar. The court on Wednesday also granted the state bar permission to 'impute' performance test scores for those unable to complete that test section due to technical problems—a process that involves using submitted answers to project their performance on sections that were missing. The state bar estimates that imputing performance test scores will result in 79 more people going from failing to passing and bump up the overall pass rate from the current 63% to 65%—which is nearly double the average 35% rate in recent years. More than 200 people moved from failing to passing earlier this month when the state bar signed off on a separate grading change, which moved the overall pass rate from 56% to 63%. Some state bar trustees have expressed concern about some of the exam's proposed remedies and the higher pass rate, citing the bar's duty to protect the public from unqualified lawyers. At the state bar's request, the California Supreme Court already lowered the raw score needed to pass the exam and imputed scores for both the multiple-choice and essay portions of the February exam. The state bar did not immediately respond on Wednesday to a request for comment on the Supreme Court's latest rulings but has previously said it "would never take any steps to detract from its public protection mission.' California's February bar exam—the first not to use any components of the national test—was plagued with technical and logistical problems, including software crashes and interruptions from proctors. That exam has sparked several lawsuits, including at least two filed by test takers and one filed by the state bar against the testing company that administered it. State Bar Executive Director Leah Wilson said she will step down in July, citing the bungled rollout of the new exam. While it approved the bulk of the state bar's petitions, the California Supreme Court denied a request to explore proposals for admitting attorneys licensed in other states without requiring them to take and pass the state's bar exam. That would require a change in state law, which requires bar passage for admission, the court noted. Read more: Hundreds of California bar exam-takers move from fail to pass with new scoring California's February bar exam mess is costing millions to clean up
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Pride continues to crumble
In the canteen of the House of Lords last week, a friendly server asked me if I'd like some 'Pride pudding'. This turned out to be a rainbow-coloured crumble created in honour of Pride month. 'Er, no thanks,' I said, and then noticed a large 'Progress Pride' flag behind the counter. Oh dear, I thought. That'll set the cat among the pigeons. Sure enough, a couple of hours later the GC Cons Peers' WhatsApp group erupted. This is made up of those dinosaurs who style themselves 'gender critical' – i.e. they believe sex is biological, binary and immutable. For the uninitiated, the Progress Pride flag features a large, multicoloured chevron superimposed on the standard rainbow layout. The colours correspond to different groups that don't feel adequately represented by the common or garden Pride flag, and include the colours of the trans flag. (Yes, there's one of those, too.) Among the embattled armies facing off on the red benches, this flag is the banner of those who believe that trans women are women and should be granted unfettered access to women's spaces. That's long been an issue of heated debate in the Lords, but it's reached fever pitch following the recent Supreme Court ruling. We GC Cons naively thought this would settle the matter in our favour, but naturally the same progressives who during the Brexit wars condemned those who questioned the wisdom of the Supreme Court justices as rabble-rousing populists are now quick to condemn them as 'bigots' and 'transphobes'. Scarcely a week passes without the two sides locking horns over the judgment, with the LGBTQQIP2SAA Lab Peers arguing that it's meaningless until the Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued official 'guidance' about how to interpret it. Baroness Falkner, the EHRC's chair, is sympathetic to the GC cause, but she's due to step down in November and our opponents' plan is to delay the 'guidance' until they've managed to install a stooge in her place. Meanwhile, they're not about to lower their banner. So for the Progress Pride flag to be planted in the Lords' canteen was, for the GC Cons, a major defeat. The common parts of the House are supposed to be neutral ground. And, of course, another tactic of the pink-haired radicals (even some nonagenarian Labour baronesses have pink hair) is to present their highly contentious views on gender as politically settled, like climate change. In other words, this was a double blow – they'd parked their tanks in the demilitarised zone and succeeded in disguising them as electrically-powered UN peacekeeping vehicles. This could not stand! A tactic of the pink-haired radicals is to present their highly contentious views on gender as politically settled Several GC Cons immediately fired off letters to the Lords' bewigged officials. The doughty Baroness Nicholson was first over the top, quickly followed by Baroness Jenkin – the Boadicea of our tribe – and yours truly. My argument was that under the Equality Act the Lords has an obligation to foster good relations between those who have a particular protected characteristic and those who don't. Believing that sex is real is a protected belief and allowing the banner of those who think sex is 'assigned at birth' to fly in the canteen is hardly fostering good relations. No doubt the same peers who've rejected the Supreme Court ruling would dispute this interpretation of the Act and refer the matter to the EHRC, with judgment delayed until Falkner has gone. But, amazingly, the powers that be appear to have been convinced – not just by my letter, I'm sure – and over the weekend the flag was removed. Pride pudding is still on sale, but that's fine; it was the flying of the trans colours that was the issue, not the celebration of Pride Month. I even said in my letter that I had no problem with the Pride flag, which isn't strictly true. I'd prefer it if public institutions remained impartial when it comes to all political battles, even those the progressive left can justifiably claim to have won. No objection to gay rights obviously, but the Pride flag has come to mean much more than that and I find its ubiquitous presence in June oppressive, as if you're being ordered what to think about a whole cluster of issues. But one battle at a time and for now I'll take the win. In late breaking news, Labour has announced its preferred candidate to succeed Baroness Falkner – Mary-Ann Stephenson – and stone me if she isn't a bit GC herself. Was that a cock-up? I suspect not. My impression is that Sir Keir and his cronies recognise that prolonging this battle is a vote-loser, just as it was for the Democrats in the US election. The GC Cons may think we've succeeded in forcing the trans zealots to lower the Progress Pride flag. But in reality it's Labour that has abandoned this fight.
Reuters
5 hours ago
- Reuters
Brazil's top court forms majority to hold social media platforms accountable for users' posts
BRASILIA, June 11 (Reuters) - Brazil's Supreme Court formed a majority on Wednesday to hold social media companies accountable for the content published by users on their platforms in the country.
