WANNA BE A CIVIL COURT JUDGE?

I like the name: "Independent Judicial Screening Panel." Kind of like "Ministry of Truth."

Gines:

Did you notice that I left out the word "independent?"

It was an intentional omission. (Further I sayeth not.)

Lucas, why not call a spade, a spade?

The process is far from "independent," it's probably as corrupt as it gets. Everyone knows the only way to get out of these panels is for the candidates to curry favor with the organizations and their cronies that get assigned to serve. And, the political bosses end up stacking the panel in a way that ensures that "their" candidate always comes out anyway.

It's all a "feel good" measure, to give "outsiders" the impression that it is an open and fair process. People in the know, know, this is all a farce.

Sy,

While not 'independent," I think it's a real stretch to call the system "corrupt." I served on a screening panel once. Most of the panel members approached the job diligently -- it's a lot of work to read all of the submissions and interview the candidates.

Of course, everyone who serves on these panels is sponsored by some organization and comes into the process with the aim of promoting her organization's position. That's politics.

BTW,

Anyone can start their own judicial screening panel -- just about every bar association has one now. You can screw people by just putting press releases listing the candidates who don't agree to apply to be screened and interviewed.

I agree with Gines. "Corrupt" IS too harsh a word.

Could the system be better? No question.

Could it be more "transparent?" Absolutely!

But, according to the US Supremes in the Lopez-Torres case, it is what it is.

And, while anyone can form a screening panel, if you're counting on an endorsement from the New York Times, that paper tends to look to panels sanctioned by the County Committee and the New York City Bar.

I think a NYT endorsement is overrated on this front; most of the judicial endorsements get written up in a paragraph or two buried in the Saturday op-ed or Sunday City section.

Overrated or not, if you're running a campaign for any office, you'd rather have an NYT endorsement than not.

I can't tell you how many voters (and I've witnessed it) go to the polls with a copy of those endorsements in-hand.
.
So, in my opinion, the value of an NYT endorsement remains incalculable.

I partially disagree Lucas. The endorsement probably helps in some parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn; not the rest of the city.

If the ballot says pick three names, people will pick the first three names for their preferred party or names they relate to on an ethnic or gender level.

We saw evidence of the inverse of this pattern a few months ago when you posted about last November's Manhattan Supreme Court balloting.

There were four justices on the ballot; all were endorsed by both the Democratic and Republican parties. Justice Abdus-Salaam received considerably fewer votes than the other three candidates. I suggested that some voters probably declined to vote for her because of her name.

The post is here:

http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/2007/12/yasser_arafat_for_supreme_cour_1.html#001630