Since Ms. Wolsing has a vested interest in emphasizing only those points that support her goal of cramming the courts full of judges who agree with her, I thought some people might want something more detailed.

http://members.mobar.org/showmecourts/elections.htm

If any facet of government should be unentangled by popular opionion du jour (or “accountable to the voters” as Ms Wolsing states) it is the judiciary.

I consider myself and anti-federalist but Ms Wolsing makes a good point here: even if the public is stupid and doesn’t know how to pick judges that doesn’t mean a group of lawyers is going to do any better. Do the sunshine laws not apply in this case? You might think the PD would have something to say about that except perhaps we don’t need government accountability when what the editors believe is best for us is happening without us knowing.

Lawyers picketing our judges are the reason for the corrupt pathetic court system that we have.

I am for voting for judges from the beginning. This way, we will learn more about these people we place on the bench before placing them there. I am totally against the Non-Partisan Plan.

I totally agree witrh Ms. Wolsing when she state: The commissions are dominated by unaccountable trial lawyers, leaving Missourians with little protection against poor decisions.

There are some known mentally sick judges on the bench that the people would certainly reject if they had known or became aware of some of their bad behavior. This Nonpartisan Plan must change.

People need to know more about these judges who have been placed on the bench. Attorneys are not a creditable source for learning if a judge is worthy of retaining their bench.

There’s an old saw about practicing law;

“If you have the law, hammer the law. If you have the facts, hammer the facts. If you don’t have the law or the facts, hammer the other side!”

The Missouri Non-Partisan Plan provides for strict confidentiality for the applicants, until the three members of any panel are announced. Think about it, people which apply may wish to keep their application a secret and unless they make the panel we don’t know who applies. The process is much like a secret ballot, how would you feel if every time you voted, someone or everyone was immediately informed that you had voted and for whom or what?

Ms. Wolsing complains about the commissions being “dominated by unaccountable trial lawyers” which is patently false. There are judges, members of the public and members of the Bar on the Commissions, and the lawyers all run for election (among all Missouri lawyers in the judicial area) or are appointed by the very governor who whines about his lack of input.

Ms. Wolsing claims to “look to other states” to support her contention of some need for change but, mentions only one state while mentioning that our plan is still a model for the nation, albeit in a backhand way!

As for Ms. Wolsing’s complaint about alleged Democrats dominating the panels selected, we all know that GOP lawyers are too busy ripping off the poor and defenseless to be bothered by the pittances paid to judges.

“[T]he fate of our most violent criminals” isn’t decided by any judge but, properly by the local prosecutors or juries, as most violent offenders have to serve 85% of any sentence, which is fixed as to minimums. Judges don’t set insurance rates, insurers set insurance rates, especially now that Matt and Andy Blunt have given away the store to any regulated industry in Missouri (that’s why they destroyed the e-mails–to stay out of federal prison and so the GOP isn’t shafted for the next 40 years for ripping off working people in Missouri). Individual liberties are most often involved in federal courts, and those which might be involved in state courts have much more to fear from facist GOP meddling than from anything a Democratic judge might ever do.

Any Lawyer in Missouti which meets the qualifications for a judgship may now apply for Judge Limbaugh’s vacancy. It remaims to be seen whether any Republican even applies. But, it is no business of ill-informed partisan stalking horses for the most extreme element of facist corporatist Republicanism which persons do apply.

I guess my problem with “reforming” the Missouri Plan is how that would take place. The letter doesn’t once say how the process is unfair or not based on merit. To say that just because the last several judges selected were Democrats doesn’t necessarily indicater that there is no merit in the process. Are you trying to say that having a Democrat nominated means that the process is flawed?
What this writer wants is not a fair or impartial plan but one based on voter prferences. It works for her now because we have an inept Republican governer and a legislature that ignores the vote of the people (conceal and carry). Her assumption is that this legilature will do the same with the judicial process because of its past behaviors. Mabe they will and mabe they won’t, but what will they do when Nixon wins. Then there will be more need for reform until she gets not what this state needs but what she and her group want.
Voter accountability is not cure all for some of the flaws in our system. I know it may be difficult for this lady to remember and understand, but Hitler was elected and given conrol of Germany through the process of voter accountability. G W was eleted not once but twice through the use of disinformation, misinformation, out right lies, and the call to make America safe while worrying little about the “will of the people”.
The letter writer is little interested in advancing the cause of justice. Why look to other states for justification of her position? As with any system, it is only as effective as the individuals responsible of its operation. Problems in other states may not be a reflection of the faults of the Missouri Plan, but more an indication of the flaws of the people implementing the plan.
Considering the source of this letter and her association with an organization that has little interest in advancing the cause of justice, one has to wonder what her true agenda might be.

While this article is good start, it’s a little milquetoast for me. Furthermore, while the comments on this forum are well-intentioned, many of the commenters do not have all of the facts.

First, the Appellate Judicial Commission *is* dominated by trial attorneys. Four out of the seven members of the nominating commission are members of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys. The governor only gets to select three of those members, for all of the good that it does him.

Second, the sheer number of Democratic nominees (17 out of the last 18) tells you the process is anything but non-partisan. That means we had six vacancies and got only one nominally Republican nominee. And that nominee was Pat Breckinridge, a friend of Chief Justice Laura Stith, who sits on the nominating commission.

Third and finally, the judiciary should not be immune from some voter accountability. I suggest we adopt something like the federal model, which is very open and accountable to voters. In the federal model, the President picks the judicial candidate with the Senate’s advice and consent. Despite some commenters’ concerns about voter accountability politicizing the bench, federal judges are often viewed as being fairer and better qualified than those presiding in state courts. If we had a similar model in Missouri, we would allow the voters to have some much-needed indirect sway over the judicial philosophies in our state.

http://www.grafshepherd.com