Recently, the Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice has been touting the need for some sort of merit selection for judges. Now that he has won three elections, he believes that process is tainted and that appointment in some form is the purer form of selection.

And then I read today's story on the appointment process for federal judges:

Two weeks before Barack Obama won the presidency, Texas senators did what they'd done many times before. They invited lawyers to apply for lifetime appointments as federal judges.

Scores of applications poured in. A legal panel handpicked by the Republican senators - said to consist almost entirely of well-connected Republicans, with nary a plaintiff lawyer among them - narrowed the field.

But with Democrats in complete control of the federal government, Texas Democrats say, that process will no longer do. The screening system is on hold, beginning a fight that has already strained relations in Texas' congressional delegation and will test Obama's promises of bipartisanship.

Details.

[Do you really believe that an appointment process takes out the politics of selecting judges?]

[This message was edited by JB on 03-17-09 at .]

The appointment process always will test, first and foremost, who the candidate knows. Legal scholarship and acumen are secondary qualifications. Until that dynamic changes, the process will always be political.

I see no reason to believe appointments would take the politics out of the selection process or result in better judges.

I strongly believe judges should be elected. Lifetime appointments for federal judges has proven to be a huge mistake, in my mind. Philosophically, I can't justify having one entire branch of the federal government selected by someone other than we the people and accountable to no one. I don't think Texas should move in that direction. And at the state level, it is my understanding that gubernatorial appointment followed by retention elections is a de facto lifetime appointment in the states where that system is in use.

While I am on my soapbox, does it bother anyone besides me that 2 federal judges in Texas who were defeated at the state ballot box now have lifetime appointments to the federal bench? The people of Texas said they didn't want them to be a judge for another 4 years, yet now they are judges for life. Nothing against the 2 gentlemen, but that stinks.

The selection process is certainly going to be political either way, but arguably making judges run for re-election on a regular basis forces them to be political forever. Maybe that's better, I suppose, since accountability is important. But at the same time, elections make the judges beholden to political parties and contributors forever, not just for the appointment.

Is there any way to remove politics from the equation completely?

Politics is not a dirty word. Money is what really corrupts the process. Find a way to run a judicial race with a minimum of funding from parties or lawyers in the cases.

Taking the unpopular route, perhaps, I believe all judicial candidates should be screened before they can run. The present requirements are so minimal they really don't lend anything to the process.

Or maybe we could borrow from civil law jurisdictions and have a group of professionals who train to be judges and judges alone.

JAS

Besides the political problem, there are other problems. Most people don't know, or in some cases don't care, who the person is, or what experience they have. That is especially true in small counties with "hometown" people running. I also agree that the requirements need to be tougher. Maybe like John S said - some type of screening process before election. But that would also be tough in the smaller counties because they might have limited choices. There is no good answer, but I like John B's answer also that taking the big money out of the equation would help. Also maybe an off-year election where straight ticket voters would have to make a choice, rather than just vote for a political party.

For last year's thread on this issue, click here.

Sounds awfully familiar.

Sure he likes merit appointments...

Now that he has so many years of experience on the high court he can claim to have more "merit" than others who might seek his spot on the bench in an election.

In most jurisdictions we will fire a purchasing agent for letting a vendor buy him a hamburger. But, we do absolutely nothing when a lawyer gives $500.00 (or more) to a judge when he has a case (or more) pending in his court.

Are purchasing agents that weak or are our judges that strong?

If we were serious about "the appearance of impropriety" we would disqualify a lawyer from practicing in front of a judge that he or she has given money to. (It should be a giant hint when most might call the act "a bribe" in almost any other setting!)

And, I suspect that many will completely disregard my rhetorical question. But, I have come to firmly believe that it is the sum of the many incongruous ethical positions (like the example above) that we as a profession take that contribute to the low esteem in which we are universally held.

<----putting soap box back under desk

Is it easier to think the lawyer is bribing the judge ... or that the judge is extorting the lawyer?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Talley:
If we were serious about "the appearance of impropriety" we would disqualify a lawyer from practicing in front of a judge that he or she has given money to.

---

If I were a defense lawyer, I would give a contribution to every judge I thought wasn't pro-defense. If the DA donated to a judge's campaign, would that judge be prohibited from hearing any criminal cases?

I don't think that solution is workable. Better to prohibit attorneys from donating money to campaigns (although there might be some free speech issues at stake there). But without the money from people who are in the best position to judge the candidates, how do judicial candidates campaign at all?

One of the "qualifications" every judge should have is having been him/herself or a member of the immediate family a victim of a violent crime. There is nothing like getting your butt kicked in some mall parking lot by a local dirt bag to temper the fancy legal theorizing.

quote:

---

One of the "qualifications" every judge should have is having been him/herself or a member of the immediate family a victim of a violent crime.

---

Just to keep it fair every potential judge should also commit and be punished for a violent crime so they have a first-person appreciation of state prison. Judicial candidates could be even more "qualified" if they develop and subsequently overcome an addiction to illegal drugs.

I can't wait to hear the campaign slogans bragging about all these new qualifications.

I remain an advocate of non-partisan judicial elections. For that matter, I wouldn't oppose non-partisan elections for prosecuting attorneys either. To an extent, that's what happens now in most city council and school board elections. Turnout is generally low but the folks who are voting are usually the ones who care. Having judicial elections apart from the normal primary and general election cycle would have the same effect. Limiting or placing greater restrictions on campaign contributions would not be a bad idea either.