Jo, you did not answer my question in a previous thread. Today in the PD there was an article about Obama trying to go back on taking public financing. Hogan?

Centrist - Since Hogan is apparently too busy to respond, let me respond on his behalf:

You yappers are dreaming if you think the Democrats are going to fight this election with one hand tied behind their back. The working people of America are counting on Democrats to win big, and to finally turn this plutocratic bunch of thieves out to pasture. If McCain needs more money, he can go cheat another S&L.

Centrist: This thread has nothing to do with campaign finance. That’s for another post.

This ballot proposal is a terrible idea and should be defeated. Missouri has a lot to be proud of in the Missouri (Judicial Selection) Plan, and our state has provided an outstanding model of non-partisan judicial selection to other states that have wisely followed our lead. It would be a shame to throw it away.

If this effort to abolish independent judicial selection proves successful, it is because Missouri voters will have ignored the most basic of civics lessons. The people wishing to undo the Missouri Plan are doing it because they are part of several well-funded political minorities working every day in many ways to subjugate the lives of all Missourians to their will and their particular visions. The only thing standing between the tyrrany of such a minority, acting through the legislative branch, is the constitution which must be defended by the courts. The same constitution that protects our individual rights and liberties also provides for our judicial system to function as our independent 3rd branch of government. This is not a coincidence. It’s 2 sides of the same coin. If an autocratic minority is to be successful in imposing its will on the rest of us, it must find a way to get around the guarantees of individual liberty and equal protection found in the constitution in favor of a world view consistent with its own. For this reason, judicial independence has become the enemy these vocal minorities seek to destroy. Independent judges who faithfully interpret and uphold the constitution are the enemy of those that wish to impose their will and their agenda on the rest of us. In order to trample the rights of the majority, these zealots seek to rid the judicial branch of independent minds in favor of stacking it with idealogues that will interpret (away) the constitution in a manner consistent their minority world view.

My 2 Cents - I don’t know if the proposed plan would improve anything, but it certainly couldn’t make matters worse. Our judicial system is presently “independent” only to the extent that it is not under the direct control of another branch. That would not change. Indeed, what is proposed is not unlike the federal system, where the chief executive nominates, and the senate must confirm, judges.

Our present “non-partisan” system is one in which the legal profession controls selection of judges rather than the public, through elected officials. This could hardly be a good thing. And what makes it worse is, it has resulted in a public that is in total ignorance about judges, and a judiciary with no incentive to change that.

The judiciary is supposed to serve the public interest, by serving the law. Allowing judges to be selected by the very people who earn a living by practicing before them has, not surprisingly, resulted in a judicial system that has created great demand for attorneys, and very mixed results as regards justice. Perhaps the proposed system will change that.

Mr. Kasoff — If we were returning to election of judges versus appointments, then I think your points would be an excellent argument for the changes. However, the proposed changes keep the appointment system. The only change is that it puts more power into the hands of one person — the governor. Don’t get me wrong, the Governor already has a great deal of power in the current system, but the changes would give him/her almost complete control.

Right now, 3 of the 5 commissioners are governor appointees - the 2 lay members and the appellate judge. Its just that the current governor didn’t get to appoint any of the current commission members in St. Louis County who were governor appointees. Notice that one of the conditions in the new proposal is that all members are removed and are reappointed by the governor. As the current appointees were appointed by democrats and still have a number of years to serve, it seems a bit partisan to have that condition included.

Also, currently there is a 2-step system; the Commission nominates 3 persons, and then the Governor chooses from among those 3. Under the proposed system, the commission will recommend 5, and if the governor doesn’t like any of them, then he gets to make the commission give him 5 additional names. This puts so much more power and control of the system in the hands of the governor, that is more partisan, and less likely to turn out the best candidate as opposed to the best “situated” candidate than exists now. Add to that, an increase in the number of commission positions and make them appointed, so the governor will now appoint a higher percentage of commission members, and you have all the power going to the office of the governor. The idea of the non-partisan plan was to remove politics. While the current system doesn’t remove partisanship completely, the proposed amendment opens the door and invites in partisanship with open arms.

I have applied for a judicial appointment a number of times over the years, without success in even making a panel. So I have no particular love for the current system, but the proposed changes, in my opinion, are to allow a particular party that is in power and believes it will remain in control of the governor’s office after the 1st of the year, wholesale control over the judical appointments in the St. Louis City and County Circuit Courts.

If you think change is necessary, then lets go back to elections. Or increase the number of eligible appointees for the governor from 3 to 5, but any of the other changes just takes whatever “non-partisan” is left in the non-partisan court plan, and flushes it down the toilet.

Remember, the fact that the governor is upset about the names he is offered on the panel to appoint means that some non-partisan processes are working.

A lawyer—I agree with you 100%.

Well-spoken….that’s my interpretation of this plan as well. Anyone who cannot envision this occuring once changed has their blinders on too tight.