| dc.description.abstract |
Reseña:As the Time article noted, one problem with voters going tothe polls and having a say in choosing the people who resolvetheir disputes and enforce the law is that “most voters do notknow much about the candidates for whom they are voting.”6As discussed below in this article, the same could be said aboutvoters going to the polls and having a say in deciding whether...As the Time article noted, one problem with voters going tothe polls and having a say in choosing the people who resolvetheir disputes and enforce the law is that “most voters do notknow much about the candidates for whom they are voting.”As discussed below in this article, the same could be said aboutvoters going to the polls and having a say in deciding whethersitting judges should remain on the bench. Further complicatingthe process and the difficulties of ensuring both independenceand competence is that “[d]efinitions of a good judgeread like recommendations for sainthood: compassionate yetfirm, at once patient and decisive, all wise and upstanding.”The difficulty in finding the best possible process for locatingand retaining judges who can live up to such lofty standardsmakes examining judicial selection and retention an especiallymeaningful undertaking. In 2005, almost three decades after these very issues were being raised and discussed in Time, we examined them as partof a symposium on Judicial Independence at Fordham LawSchool in Manhattan, New York. The present article is derivedfrom an article, written for the symposium (and published inFordham Urban Law Journal), that contains specific informationabout the merit selection system that exists in Nebraska.The present article notes a number of examples of what appearto be steps in the right direction toward improving judicialselection processes as a whole and judicial retention processesas a part. |
