Compare that to the roster of partners at most large law firms, which is mostly an “old boys” kind of thing, appointed, not elected.

A “blue ribbon” appointment process will cause the judiciary to look less and less like the people who come before it, and there will also be a resultant bias towards big firms, big institutions, and yes, big government.

To paraphrase Churchill, “elections may be messy, but they beat all other alternatives”.

One need look no further than next door for proof. When the West Virginia Supreme Court looked likely to rule against Massey Energy (the company of the recent coal mine explosion) for hundreds of millions, company owner Don Blankenship simply spent $50 million to defeat an unfavorable judge in the next election.

Sure, he lost by a popular vote of the people, but only because the campaign against him – the largest in WV history – was bankrolled by special interests.

Judicial candidates have to raise money in order to campaign – from special interests like big business, labor unions and lawyers groups. Why would such groups continue to contribute to campaigns unless they were receiving some sort of benefit? How can any judge claim to be impartial after soliciting campaign contributions special interests?

Either put these elections on public financing, or go to appointment by a non-partisan board.

The judiciary in PA is filled to the brim with unqualified, unaccountable poltical hacks.

Who funds the wannabee judges’ campaigns?

Answer: LAWYERS, the same lawyers who come before the judges after they are elected.

Sure looks like a monumental conflict of interest to me.

And judges do not run for re-election, they run for retention – meaning, they have no opponent at the end of their terms. Its essentially like encumbancy on steroids.

As to the Churchilian response: appointment and confirmation is still consistent with democracy, and, we are a constitutional REPUBLIC not a pure referendum-driven democracy.

Regarding the details of the Governors’ proposed plan, I have not looked into it. I suspect if I had, I would probably find that it sucks.

There are ways to depoliticize and improve the courts without going to the extreme of an appointive system. The election of judges maintains respect for the fact that We the People, not politicians, are the final arbiters of what the Constitution means.

The plan currently put forward would only serve to give the PBA full control over who sits on the courts while excusing its members from making campaign contributions. Nothing more than a discount program for lawyers under the color of law. With lawyers leading the charge? I’m shocked, SHOCKED!!! (/sarc)

“Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts?” Gee whiz, that sounds awfully familiar. It’s the same sort of organization that brought us the constitutional revision movement of the 1960′s: “A Modern Constitution for Pennsylvania, Inc.,” a front group for the PBA.

AKA Lawyers & Politicans, Inc.: the very same folks who gave us a full time legislature, an explosion of the ABCs of government, and a court that rules 180 degrees opposite of what the Constitution says.

No thanks. No way. No how. Not on my watch.

Of course that also clashes with some of the merit selection proposed ideas in PA because I think the whole idea of the state bar and an “independent panel” (I always laugh about independent panels … they are appointed by someone political and really are rarely independent) is ridiculous. If it was something simple and straightforward like the feds where the executive nominates and senate publicly vets, I would be more inclined.

But then there is the other side of the coin … I really don’t trust many people in Harrisburg to make good decisions. If the last 8 years are any indicator, merit selection would be a hot mess too (that goes for executive and legislative).

So, in a nutshell, since there is no significant weight for either option, I defer to Winston Churchill, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

So, in that regards, I do support Nathan’s ideas about having judges with no political (no region?) markings and allow non-major party voters to select as well. On that note, I would also say eliminate primaries for judges. Save campaign costs by letting it all be sorted out in a General election.

What you perhaps don’t realize is this; the Bar Associations have an absolute stranglehold over the judical elections with the status quo.

Look at any county, and see how the bar associations do the vetting and screening, and then act as a surrogate for the Party (Dem or Repub, situationally dependant) in recommending an endorsement. Then the party follows through and the candidate is annointed.

A lot of it is through back-channels, but everyone knows that is how it is done.

In fact the judical elections are far more “pay-to-play” than the other elections, because they are so low-profile typically, and the press (and the electorate) really doesn’t scrutinize the candidates.

Go into Court in filthydelphia any day of the week, both criminal and civil, and see the glorious fruits of our electoral system for judges. Or go into any other County to see the same on a smaller scale.

Its not pretty.

Bar Associations are political, period. They are also liberal, and they are a self-protecting class. And under this system, they reign supreme.

Bailey:

2nd paragraph, Exactly.