|
Letters-to-the-Editor
The Wall Street Journal
Dear Editor:
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra
Day O'Connor's recent op-ed claims that an influx of special
interest money in state judicial races threatens the integrity
of judicial selection. (Justice for Sale, 11/15/07). But
Justice O'Connor is confusing the symptom with the disease.
In recent times, judges at all
levels have shown an alarming propensity to legislate from the
bench. Many of today's judicial decisions intrude into business,
social and regulatory questions that were traditionally
considered the domain of elected legislators. With judges
routinely overstepping their bounds, voters have every right to
hold judicial candidates responsible for activist decisions.
Unfortunately, Justice O'Connor's
prescription is as flawed as her diagnosis.
Several states have already adopted
variations of the 'merit-selection' system she favors. But
instead of promoting non-partisanship, this system generally
gives trial lawyers and other legal elites the upper hand in
deciding who sits on the bench.
In Missouri, three members of the
state's seven-member Appellate Judicial Commission are
practicing trial lawyers and the fourth is a member of the
Missouri Association of Trial Lawyers. In Tennessee, 14 out of
17 members of the Judicial Selection Commission are lawyers,
half trial lawyers. In Kansas, five out of nine commission
members are hand-picked by the State Bar.
I fail to see how putting the trial
bar in charge of the judicial selection process guarantees an
impartial judiciary while allowing voters to get involved
violates some sacred principle of judicial independence.
Sincerely,
Dan Pero
Former member of the Michigan
Judicial Tenure Commission
President of the American Justice
Partnership
|
