judgesonmerit.org

Once again, we’re faced with opponents who fail to recognize the inconsistencies in their own positions. In a recent post attacking Merit Selection, Dan Pero of American Courthouse demonstrates that he really prefers a judicial selection system that involves no direct public participation at all.

He’s talking about the federal system, a pure appointment system. The president nominates a judge, who then must be confirmed by the Senate. If confirmed, the judge serves for life. There’s no retention process; the judge never goes before the public in any sort of election or evaluative process.

Under Merit Selection, by contrast, after an initial four year term on the bench, the appellate judge would stand before the public in a retention election. The public would have the ultimate opportunity to determine whether the judge should continue to serve for a full ten-year term. This process is repeated every ten years thereafter (until the judge voluntarily resigns or reaches the mandatory retirement age).

We understand that the President (who nominates) and the Senators (who confirm) are elected representatives of the people and that the people are therefore represented in the federal process. We agree, and point out that this is also true in Merit Selection where the Governor nominates and the Senators confirm. But retention offers a direct role for the public to weigh in on whether the judge should remain on the bench.

So, when you’re talking about democracy and a role for the people, Merit Selection offers more than the federal system.

As the campaign for Merit Selection progresses, we hear some inaccurate arguments repeated by those who oppose Merit Selection. In an effort to set the record straight, we’ll reveal the truth and clear up these myths.

Myth #4 Merit Selection is Just Like the Federal System for Selecting Judges

The federal system of selecting judges is a pure appointment system. Although many qualified judges reach the bench this way, the federal system isn’t Merit Selection.

First of all, under the federal system, the president can appoint anyone of his/her choosing. That nominee is then subject to Senate confirmation, and will serve for life or good behavior.

Absent from this system is a key piece of Merit Selection: the constitutionally-mandated role of the nominating commission, a nonpartisan citizen-based commission charged with evaluating candidates for the appellate courts.

Under Merit Selection, the Governor is required to make a nomination from the commission’s list of highly qualified candidates. No such requirement exists in the federal system. Although Pennsylvania has a bi-partisan nominating commission to advise our United States Senators on possible federal court appointments, its recommendations are not binding on the president.

Merit Selection also provides that following a brief term on the bench, a judge would stand before the public in a nonpartisan, yes/no retention election. The federal system doesn’t have any sort of retention election; once confirmed, federal judges serve for life or good behavior.

Keep visiting JudgesOnMerit.org to learn the truth about Merit Selection.