The Symposium entitled "Judicial Professionalism in a New Era of Judicial Selection," held on October 22, 2004, at the Walter F. George School of Law of Mercer University in Macon, Georgia, generated important questions on judicial selection reform: how are judges selected, how should they be selected, what makes a good judge, how should we deal with a bad judge, what changes need to be made in judicial selection, where are they being made, how can they be made in other states, and how long will it take to accomplish them. Shall we have a justice system where judgeships are a reward for the politically faithful; where the right to dispense justice is acquired by unjustly heaping abuse on one's adversary through attack advertisements; where selecting the best person for the job depends on skill in collecting campaign cash; where many voters cast ballots blind, ignorant of the candidate except for his name; and where unsuspecting voters choose a "Roy Moore when they need a Harry Blackmun, who was not and never would have been elected to any public office." These are all essential questions to be resolved as Georgia and other states with elected judiciaries decide how to reform their judicial selection systems. This Article will highlight certain aspects of the dissatisfaction with judicial selection expressed at the Symposium and suggest some remedies. It will also focus on common objections to and proposed solutions for appointive selection plans.
Greene, Norman L.
"Perspectives on Judicial Selection,"
Mercer Law Review: Vol. 56:
3, Article 8.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol56/iss3/8