How about that new arena down town- be the only was they’ll ever pack to place with paying Kansans.

There is a difference here. Members of the political branches – city councils, legislators, governors, presidents, etc. make policy. They make the policy decisions that govern nearly every aspect of their lives. And within constitutional constraints they are free to make any policy they wish, subject only to the ability to persuade the voters.

Judges are something different. Judges have to apply that policy to individual cases. They must apply that policy evenly, equally, and fairly, to all who appear before them. Ideally, they do not make that policy (thought the line here is admittedly somewhat fuzzy at the appellate level).

Thus, a member of the political branch’s policy positions are crucial; for a judge, much less so, at least at the trial court level.

“Gallows to be placed at a location yet to be determined.”

Why not for all felons?

And we could put the gallows on Scooter Libby’s front lawn, for his convenience.

The alterantive proposed here is then to let a few select insiders choose who occupies the office. Naturally they would only choose from among their own ranks. So the establishment of a ruling class would be the only likely result.

Is that what Rhonda is seeking? A move away from democracy?

Gallows to be placed at a location yet to be determined.

That’s why it’s a lawsuit.”

No, it’s a lawsuit because somebody is pissed. Or someoboy wants a payoff. There are lots of lawsuits that are not controversial in the sense being discussed. That being controversial in opionon or ideology. But hey, it’s okay to make your point. Who cares. Whatever trips your trigger. You are entitled to your opinion, and your stating it. For whatever reason you choose.

“…district court judges are called upon to make the less controversial issues…”

With the exception of criminal cases (where defense lawyers generally work to assure the process of constitutional adjudication minds its P’s and Q’s), EVERY lawsuit is a “controversial issue.”

That’s why it’s a lawsuit.

I understand that however accomplished, the selection of judges, by election or by appointment, is political at least in part. I do not favor further politicizing the process, which, to my mind, is what Kansas Judicial Watch is attempting by its challenge.

Attorneys who might have to appear before incompetent judges would probably be reticent to go public on ‘em; part of a judge’s flaws could be bias against perceived “enemies.”

Remember the Oklahoma judge a while back that had a masturbation sex toy behind the bench under his robe that he worked during trials? Think the day he got caught was his first time?

Eventually, if the judge is really “bad”, the person will not be reelected; but the reaction is not quick, and I wonder at times whether the time it takes for this to happen is really any different from the time it would take to remove an appointed judge who is “bad”.

District judges, who we’re talking about electing here, in the vast majority of cases don’t make these kinds of controversial calls at all. Those kinds of calls matter at the appellate level, particularly the highest appellate level. But district judges are bound by the law and precedent handed down from above.

In other words, a district judge candidate’s personal position on “abortion, gay marriage, pornography and assisted suicide” doesn’t really matter very much, despite Rhonda’s breathless concern. What matters is that they can manage a courtroom without dominating it, make sure both sides are fairly heard and considered, apply the rules of evidence evenly, treat all litigants with respect, and decide cases on the statutory and case law – whether they agree with that law or not.

Does this question even make sense?

I try to get as informed as I can about the judicial candidates and the attorney opinions are as good as any.

http://www.kansas.com/judges/scores/

Linda, the only thing I can tell you, since judges or candidates for judge can’t campaign in the usual sense, is to talk to attorneys. We practice before (at least some of) these judges, and the judge candidates are our colleagues. Get a sense of whether attorneys think a person is a fair judge. It’s very limited knowledge, of course, and hardly “objective,” but it’s probably the best we’ve got.

Unless there are many voters who have found how to cast informed votes, it would seem the “election” of judges are made by a bunch of ill informed people.

Maybe that’s the way every candidate for every office also gets elected, and I’m a pollyanna thinking people who vote inform themselves when info is available.

As an attorney here in this district, it is difficult, I believe for the attorneys to have a grasp on all the judges. Those who limit their practice will not know nor appear in court before many of them. We may know some of them from when they were in practice, if our paths crossed; but otherwise, we hear things from our colleagues who deal or who have dealt with them, always remembering to take comments with a grain of salt. We might, as attorneys, be a bit more aware of the number of times a certain judge has been reversed on appeal, but that is not, in and of itself, an indication that judge is a “good” versus a “bad” judge.

So, after all that, my response to your query is “I don’t know”. I wish I did.

How do we keep political ideology out of the appointing process?

I think there should be a lottery for judges. Put all names in a hat and draw from the hat the required number of judges needed.

I confess I know very little about the judges who I vote for and often go to the ideological path. Probably not fair at all and of course not wise and anyone of any party can be wrong for the job and may in fact a poor candidate, regardless of party affiliation.

GMC, I don’t know about quality of justice; I do think that there seems to be little to no difference in the level of judicial competence in the districts where judges are elected compared to districts where judges are appointed.

If there was a way where selection was truly based upon merit, whatever that is, then I’d be for it to the exclusion of all other methods. My opinion is is that there is no way to have a true merit based selection process so long as humans are involved.

That said, I favor appointing judges as opposed to electing them directly, for reasons that are difficult for me to articulate. However, I do not pretend that appointments are solely based upon merit, knowing that connections, political and personal, carry great weight in the process of selecting the appointee.