McCain Calls for Appointment of “Independent, Nonpartisan” Panel of Military Vets to Decide Presidency…Obama Counters That Committee of Community Organizers Should Pick Next President Based On “Merit, Not Politics”…
September 15, 2008
Can anyone imagine a more flagrant violation of democratic principles than candidates for public office insisting that a tiny panel controlled by their favored special interest ought to make the final decision over which candidate is selected? Any attempt by John McCain or Barack Obama to sidestep voters would be met with howls of equal parts laughter and indignation – and they’d be booted off their respective tickets as quickly as a new convention could be called.
But when a state judge proposes that a secret committee of high-powered lawyers ought to decide who controls one-third of our state government, everyone jumps to attention. Editorial board members thoughtfully stroke their chins and opine on the need to take “politics” out of judicial races. Legal elites solemnly nod their heads and lecture us, saying judges should be chosen according to “merit” – as opposed to the standard that ordinary voters use. Supposedly nonpartisan good government groups praise the proposal as a way to keep judges “independent” – presumably from the people they are supposed to serve.
The latest manifestation of this trend comes to us via the BuckeyeBlog, which reports that Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer wants to revoke the Constitutional right of Ohioans to vote for state judges and adopt a “merit” selection process where a committee of lawyers does the picking. BuckeyeBlog had it right four years ago, when Moyer first floated this plan:
It is not the process of selecting judges that will preserve the independence of the judiciary. It is the character of the men and women who serve on our courts that will determine the future of Ohio’s court system. They must resist the temptation to act as omnipotent policymakers and remember their role is one of interpreting the law, not making it up from the bench.
BuckeyeBlog is right, of course, but this won’t stop more state judges from proposing with a straight face to end democratic elections and let lawyers choose based on their own definition of “merit.” I guess they believe “merit” is a necessary consideration in choosing who will wear the black robes in Jefferson City and Topeka, but not in determining who will occupy the Oval Office.