To the Editor:
Re “A Blow to the Courts” (editorial, Nov. 9):
The time is long past due when judicial elections should be abandoned in favor of merit screening and appointment.
As an informed voter, I have no way to evaluate judicial performance. In the past, I have studied evaluations put out by groups like the bar association or police organizations, but they are often at odds over some judges. At such times, my effort was frustrating and seemed fruitless.
I am left with unpalatable choices, like picking names based upon ethnicity, gender and so on or simply not voting. The former is repugnant; the latter obviously negates the whole exercise.
The current system is unfair to the many fine judges in our system and can be a travesty to petitioners coming before the bench of those who are incompetent or worse.
Anne-Marie Hislop
Chicago, Nov. 9, 2010
To the Editor:
Re your editorial in favor of merit screening for the appointment of judges:
(1) Who will choose the screeners, and by what criteria will they be chosen?
(2) When the screeners are assembled, how will they define “merit”? And when “merit” is somehow defined, how will they determine which of the judicial candidates possess it?
(3) In the selection of the screeners and the judges, what will be the role of diversity—ethnic, racial, political, economic, religious, social, geographic, gender, educational?
The idea that there can be a workable system for the merit selection of judges is just airy piety.
Mordecai Rosenfeld
New York, Nov. 9, 2010
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 