Give Me Pennsylvania Judges Over Iraqi Judges Any Day
July 19, 2010
Today’s Philadelphia Inquirer prints an op-ed by a law student arguing that Pennsylvania has a lot to learn from Iraq – yes, Iraq – when it comes to selecting judges.
In Pennsylvania, you see, judges are chosen by ordinary citizens in open, democratic elections. How backward and benighted!
Iraq, on the other hand, is blessed to have a judicial selection system created in large part, we’re told, by “U.S. State Department officials.” Read more
Support the People, Not the Elites in Pennsylvania
July 13, 2010
In a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette op-ed, Professor John Kennedy of La Salle University invites us to “jump down the rabbit hole … and imagine a world where U.S. Supreme Court justices” are elected democratically. (Hat tip to JudgesOnMerit.) He then goes on to catalogue the alleged horrors of democracy – too much campaign cash, nasty TV ads, etc.
But here’s a more interesting mental exercise. Why don’t we “jump down the rabbit hole” and consider what would happen if U.S. Supreme Court justices were chosen by “merit” selection, as Professor Kennedy proposes. Read more
Democratic Elections “Under Assault” In PA
June 18, 2010
Nathan Shrader of pa2010.com summarizes Pennsylvania voter attitudes regarding the effort in that state to, in Shrader’s words, “eliminat[e] the ability of Pennsylvania voters to choose their judges.”
Shrader lists the following stats demonstrating overwhelming voter opposition to so-called “merit” selection:
- A poll commissioned by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts found that 75 percent of Pennsylvanians feel that “merit” selection could make the judiciary more political than it is today. Almost 70 percent believe that judicial selection takes power from the public and places it in the hands of “politicians and trial lawyers.”
- A Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy poll in September 2009 found that 72 percent of Pennsylvanians favored continuing to elect their Supreme Court judges while just 21 percent would support a nominating commission.
- An Annenberg Public Policy Center poll conducted nationally in 2006 found that voters across the nation favored election over selection, as “nearly 65 percent of Americans want to elect those who sit on the bench,” according to their results.
Shrader believes “the big wigs and moneyed interests are lining up to rob the people of their voice in determining those who may one day sit in judgment of us, our families, or our rights.” That’s right: When insiders choose, the people lose.
“Merit” Nonsense in Pennsylvania
June 17, 2010
The editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette are foaming at the mouth because a bill they support that aims to strip Pennsylvanians of their right to vote for judges – a right enshrined in Pennsylvania’s Constitution – is being held up by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Tom Caltagirone. But the people of Pennsylvania should be thankful that at least one legislator is willing to stand up for their democratic rights.
In its snarky attack on Rep. Caltagirone, the Post-Gazette starkly reveals all the arrogance and condescension of the “merit” selection movement. Powerful elites support it, so who is one little legislator to stand in their way? Democratic judicial elections are just a “lottery” anyway because voters just pick the candidate with a “famous name.” Retention elections are good enough for voters – never mind that fact that judges standing for retention lose about as often as the old Soviet Politburo members.
The Post-Gazette asks “what possible harm could there be in letting lawmakers vote for something that must be endorsed or rejected by the public?” Here’s an answer: In a poll released by “merit” selection’s own supporters, 75% of Pennsylvanians said “merit” selection won’t take politics out of judicial selection and could even make the selection of judges “more political.” (Question 36) And nearly 7 out of 10 say “merit” selection transfers the power to choose judges from voters to “politicians and trial lawyers.” (Question 37)
Pennsylvanians instinctively understand that “merit” selection is really just a rigged game to put control of judicial selection in the hands of special interests. If this proposal makes it to the ballot, these special interests will spend millions upon millions to make sure that the process for choosing judges in Pennsylvania will be “one man, one vote, one time.”
A Profile In Courage in Pennsylvania
June 15, 2010
It takes courage for any politician to stand up against elite opinion. It takes even more courage when that elite opinion is backed up by powerful special interests and the checking account of billionaire hedge fund tycoon George Soros. So I’m pleased to announce that the First Annual American Courthouse Award for Distinguished Public Service goes to Pennsylvania State Representative Tom Caltagirone, a Democrat from Reading, PA. Read more
75% of Pennsylvanians say “Merit” Selection Could Make Judicial Selection “More Political”
June 10, 2010
Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (PMC) – a group funded by billionaire hedge fund titan George Soros – is trumpeting a new poll that purports to show broad public support among Pennsylvania voters for replacing democratic elections with a “merit” selection system for choosing judges. But what the poll really demonstrates is the extent to which the “merit” selection crowd will go to manipulate polling data to suit its ideological ends.
PMC claims on their blog, for example, that 93% of Pennsylvanians “want the opportunity to vote on whether Pennsylvanians should change the way we select” judges. Sounds impressive. But in the PMC poll, respondents are asked this question only after three other “questions” (see #s 41, 42 and 43) describing recent judicial scandals in Pennsylvanians. In politics, this technique is called “push polling” – a device used to manipulate public opinion, rather than illicit it. Besides, who is going to say they don’t want the “opportunity to vote” on almost any question? Read more
JudgesOnMerit Discovers Sand in the Sahara!
May 7, 2010
OK, so someone must have hacked into the computers over at JudgesOnMerit and posted a parody. How else to explain the breathless headline – “Merit Lives!” – over a post bragging about the budding support for “merit” selection from “unlikely sources” such as … drum roll please … trial lawyers! Who knew!?
At the risk of playing the straight man to those jokers, I guess I should point out the obvious: The reason trial lawyers love “merit” selection is because it gives them a seat (or two or three or four) at the table when the doors close and the secret meetings begin and legal elites get down to the business of picking judges.
In some states, trial lawyers don’t just have seats at the table - they own the table itself.
Take Missouri, for example. In that birthplace of “merit” selection, four of the seven members of the state’s “merit” board have ties to the Missouri trial lawyer association. Up until recently, in Tennessee 75 percent of the “merit” commissioners by law came from legal special interest groups like the Tennessee trial lawyers association.
Maybe it just took Pennsylvania trial lawyers longer than their peers in other states to figure out that “merit” selection is a rigged game that puts them in the driver’s seat when it comes to picking judges.
8.7 Million vs. 14 (or 6)
May 6, 2010
The folks at JudgesOnMerit – another anti-election group financed in part by hedge fund billionaire George Soros – turned me on to a pro-“merit” selection editorial from a Pennsylvania paper called the Herald-Standard. The editors endorse legislation that would scrap the voting rights of Pennsylvania’s more than 8.7 million registered voters and turn the job of selecting judges over to a 14-member panel.
“Merit” panels are often criticized – including here on American Courthouse – as a mechanism for elites to elbow out the people when it comes to choosing judges – so, perhaps in deference to this criticism, the new Pennsylvania proposal comes with a twist. Eight of the 14 members will be chosen by the governor and legislators – presumably drawn from the usual collection of legal special interests like the state trial lawyers association. But six – a minority to be sure, but still … six – will be “ordinary citizens picked by lottery.”
Bingo! It’s your lucky day – you get to pick a judge! Read more
Same Old Tune in Pennsylvania
April 27, 2010
Last week, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell made state headlines with yet another plea for the state legislature to pass “merit” selection legislation. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Rendell has been lobbying for “merit” selection of judges for “two decades” to no avail. Despite Rendell’s stunning ineffectiveness, all of the state’s pro-”merit” forces were downright delighted to have the good governor crank up the music one more time.
Joining in on the chorus, for instance, was none other than Shira Goodman who “applaud[ed] the governor’s commitment and support of this cause.” She knows this tune by heart, after all. Her group, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, has been singing the “merit” song for more than 20 years and still has nothing to show for it. Read more
No Merit in Pennsylvania
January 6, 2010
The Philadelphia Inquirer editorializes on an unfolding judicial scandal in which two county judges “face a 48-count federal racketeering case for allegedly taking payoffs to jail teens.” According to the Inquirer, this scandal represents “clear evidence” that Pennsylvania voters should be stripped of their constitutional right to select judges in competitive elections.
Huh?
The logic here, such as it is, seems to be that voters aren’t sophisticated enough to keep potentially corrupt judges off the bench. But a “merit” panel, on the other hand, could somehow divine which judicial candidates are apt to lose their moral bearings on the court and would thus pick only demi-gods, not the crooked rabble chosen by voters.
Actually, I think the authors of Pennsylvania’s Constitution had it right. They understood that not all public servants are angels, and that the best way to keep them accountable was make them go before the people on a regular basis to keep their positions. Under merit selection, once a judge is on the court it is almost impossible to remove him/her, as the experiences in states like Tennessee and Missouri demonstrate.
The truth is, neither judicial elections nor “merit” selection are infallible and both systems can produce judges that are lazy, incompetent and even corrupt. Fortunately the legal system itself can charge and remove judges who are truly venal – such as the two in Pennsylvania if the allegations prove true. But it seems to me that making judges even less accountable through “merit” selection is a strange way to keep them honest.