Judicial elections, democratic appointment (e.g., senate confirmation), and the Missouri Plan (a/k/a "merit selection")

Judicial selection and other videos

Loading...

Search This Blog

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Florida Judicial Selection Contrasted with Missouri, Kansas, etc.

This article, Florida Gov. Rick Scott often rejects Florida Bar's lists of lawyers to nominate judges, shows how the bar's preferences can clash with a governor's.  The Florida bar's power to pick members of the Judicial Nominating Commission is checked by the Florida governor.  In contrast, the bar in "hard Missouri Plan" states (like Missouri and Kansas) has unchecked power to appoint some members of the nominating commission.  In Kansas, the bar picks a majority.

Report: Wisconsin Justices Tend to Side With Donors

Report: Wisconsin Justices Tend to Side With Donors

"justices tend to rule in favor of clients whose attorneys contribute to the justices’ election campaigns"
From the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

Related: My study of Alabama Supreme Court rulings' correlation with campaign contribution.

Saturday, October 12, 2013

The Three Common Methods of Judicial Selection in the United States

This short piece briefly summarizes the three common methods of judicial selection in the United States and advocates the senate confirmation system found in the United States Constitution.

Saturday, October 5, 2013

Money, Politics and Judicial Decisions

Money, Politics and Judicial Decisions

This article presents the results of a study of 106 decisions by the Supreme Court of Alabama from January 18, 1995 through July 9, 1999. The decisions are in the area of arbitration law and reveal the remarkably close correlation between a justice's votes on arbitration cases and his or her primary source or campaign funds. Justices whose election campaigns are funded by plaintiffs' lawyers oppose arbitration, whereas justices whose campaigns are funded by business favor arbitration. The correlation holds not just with regard to ideologically-charged doctrines, like unconscionability, but also with seemingly bland questions of contract formation, interpretation and waiver.