<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>judgesonmerit.org &#187; Supreme Court elections</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.judgesonmerit.org/tag/supreme-court-elections/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.judgesonmerit.org</link>
	<description>Making the move to merit selection for all appellate judges in Pennsylvania</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:27:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Where is the Public Value in Electing Judges?</title>
		<link>http://www.judgesonmerit.org/2009/10/30/where-is-the-public-value-in-electing-judges/#utm_source=feed&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=feed</link>
		<comments>http://www.judgesonmerit.org/2009/10/30/where-is-the-public-value-in-electing-judges/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:41:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shira Goodman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Merit Selection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capitol Wire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jack Panella]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joan Orie Melvin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peter Decoursey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://judgesonmerit.org/?p=499</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Peter Decoursey, Capitol Wire Bureau Chief, asks (subscription required) &#8220;Where&#8217;s the Public Value&#8221; in the current Supreme Court Election.  After discussing the traditional low voter turn-out for judicial elections and the difficulty voters have in getting information relevant to deciding who should serve on the bench, Decoursey concludes: So you have an election for this [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Peter Decoursey, Capitol Wire Bureau Chief, <a href="http://www.capitolwire.com/default.asp?articleId=1995999&amp;Email=True&amp;iRegionID=1&amp;FSA=True" target="_blank">asks</a> (subscription required) &#8220;Where&#8217;s the Public Value&#8221; in the current Supreme Court Election.  After discussing the traditional low voter turn-out for judicial elections and the difficulty voters have in getting information relevant to deciding who should serve on the bench, Decoursey concludes:</p>
<blockquote><p>So you have an election for this important court, whose decisions affect the lives of people every day, and who have a penchant for disallowing legislation. And it&#8217;s an election where four out of five Pennsylvanians will sit on their hands. And that one in five or less who does vote won&#8217;t know much about either candidate.</p></blockquote>
<p>Decoursey notes that both candidates &#8212; Republican Judge Joan Orie Melvin and Democratic Judge Jack Panella &#8212; are qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. He also describes their current advertising war which has turned this campaign nasty and divisive in its homestretch: &#8220;And now that both campaigns are acting like campaigns, each said the other’s attacks violated judicial ethics canons.&#8221; We&#8217;re left, then, with an ugly campaign that is not even likely to bring out the voters.  So, Decoursey asks, what&#8217;s the point?</p>
<p>He boils this question down to a basic one (and one we&#8217;ve been asking for quite awhile): why are we electing Supreme Court justices?</p>
<blockquote><p>Since both Melvin and Panella are clearly the type of candidates who would get appointed to a Supreme Court slot if we did it that way here, you have to wonder: what is the value of this election?</p>
<p>Few will vote with any real knowledge of how the future rulings of Panella and Melvin may differ. Few will vote, period. . . .</p>
<p>So we would get the same choice of candidates, but miss out on the unseemly fund-raising from lawyers who will appear before them later, and the wonderful negative ads. . . .</p>
<p>So what is the value of this election? Unlike a presidential or gubernatorial or congressional election, nobody knows the candidates or issues. No issues get vetted or get momentum. There is no real public debate of any value.</p>
<p>And after someone wins on Tuesday, nobody will really know why they won.</p>
<p>It’s not clear where the value lies in this process.</p></blockquote>
<p>Decoursey has really said all that needs saying.  That leaves us with just this thought: isn&#8217;t it time to make these important decisions in a manner that reflects how important they are? Elections aren&#8217;t working; Merit Selection is the answer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.judgesonmerit.org/2009/10/30/where-is-the-public-value-in-electing-judges/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

