Imagine a judicial system where a judge can decide a case in which she is a defendant, even though there are nineteen other judges available and authorized by statute to hear the case.[1] Now, imagine a system of judicial discipline that takes place behind closed doors, where citizen complaints are routinely quashed with impunity. [2] And imagine a judicial nominating system that takes place in a smoke-filled room, wherein a select cabal decides who will become your next unelected and unaccountable super-legislator.[3] This is Colorado's experience with the "Missouri Plan."
Under a system of judicial election, anyone who meets the minimum qualifications for a judicial position can throw his own hat into the ring and take his case directly to the voters. In states using the "Missouri Plan," the state Bar and/or a small cadre of potentates act as gatekeepers, closing the door to disfavored but highly qualified candidates. One reporter observes with respect to Colorado's experience:
A couple of other attorneys I spoke with, Levi Martinez and Evan Lipstein, separately reflected on how the state's nominations process is also politicized: Martinez was one of the only lawyers to object to adoption of the merit selection/retention system in Colorado, 41 years ago. Lipstein, who's been around a while, too, has always been opposed to the practice of appointing primarily prosecutors to state district court vacancies, primarily because they aren't familiar with civil litigation. Lipstein had expressed his opinion on occasion with a tongue-in-cheek comment in his column of The Proclamation (a publication of the First Judicial District Bar Association). When Lipstein applied for a vacancy, he recalled, the nominating commission focused almost entirely --and unreasonably-- on Lipstein's past comments. Lipstein didn't get the job. Lipstein also noted that one "trick" the nominating commissions employ is to recommend three candidates, two of whom are woefully unsuited for the job, so that the Governor has no choice but to choose the one candidate "selected" by the commission.[4] Under what many argue is the fraudulent guise of preserving judicial independence, nominating commissions disenfranchise voters and unduly restrict their choices. This, in turn, has profound ramifications for self-governance, for over the last forty years or so, "the courts at the federal and state levels have transformed themselves into 'auxiliary legislatures'… This transformation of the judicial branch has become so complete that … more public policy is determined on the average Monday in June by the U.S. Supreme Court when it issues its decision than by Congress during it's entire session." [5]
---- [1] Smith v. Mullarkey, 121 P.3d 890, 891 & n. 1 (Colo. 2005) (per curiam). Under Colorado law, where a justice is precluded by law from hearing a case due to a conflict of interest, a judge of the state court of appeals can be called in as a substitute. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-4-101. However, for a law to have any meaning, judges actually have to follow it.
[2] Colorado's Commission on Judicial Discipline (known here as the Commission for the Abolition of Judicial Discipline), KnowYourCOurts.com, http://www.knowyourcourts.com/JDC/JDC.htm.
[3] In Colorado, all attorneys serving on the judicial merit selection system are chosen by majority vote of the state Attorney General, the Chief Justice, and the governor; all citizen members are chosen by the governor. Colo. Const. art. VI, § 24. See generally, Colorado Judicial Branch, Judicial Nominating Commissions: Colorado Merit Selection System, http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/committees/supctnomincomm.htm.
[4]More info re: Salazar & Allard picks for federal bench vacancies , KnowYourCourts.com, Apr. 4, 2008.
[5] Robert Young (Associate Justice, Michigan Supreme Court), Reflections of a Survivor of Judicial Election Warfare (lecture), Apr. 18, 2001 at 7, available at http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/mics6.pdf.
There were total of 12 Judges in the book of Judges.
the legislative branch confirms judges
The judges will wear a royal purple robe.
The Senate Judiciary Committee reviews the judges chosen by the President, and if approved, they are confirmed on the Senate floor. The President may receive nominations for judges from Senators.
Deborah was one of the Judges, and both she and Jael were instrumental in the victory over Sisera (Judges ch.4). See also 9:53.
The Missouri Plan combined a selection of qualified judges and popular sovereignty. The Missouri Plan is a method of choosing judges that is adopted by the state.
judges are chosen if they are qualified in that sport
Some judges are becoming poltically motivated.
appointed and finally subjected to election
Missouri
Missouri plan.
Missouri Plan
Missouri bar
missouri plan
The American Bar Association (ABA) rates federal judicial nominees using a scale that includes three categories: "Well Qualified," "Qualified," or "Not Qualified." These ratings are provided by a committee within the ABA and are used by the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation process for federal judges.
There are no training schools for US federal judges. They are considered to be fully qualified to take the bench at the time they are nominated for federal judgeship, or they would not be nominated in the first place.
The primary job of the judges is to control the court of law to determine what penalties an offender should get. They can determine the amount of jail time a person may get.