Monday, the ABA's House of Delegates overwhelmingly adopted a resolution calling for the use of "bipartisan commissions of lawyers and other leaders, reflecting the diversity of the profession and the community" to recommend nominees to the federal courts." The objective is "a less contentious judicial selection process," a goal I wholeheartedly support. However, even if one puts aside the ideological agenda behind the "diversity" requirement, there is every reason to doubt that the recommendations of these commissions would be "bipartisan." Just look at the many states that use a commission system for judicial nominations. Exhibit number one is Missouri, which pioneered the system in 1940. As I described in a Human Events op-ed last year,Missouri governors must appoint a judge chosen from a panel of three candidates submitted by the state’s Appellate Judicial Commission. ... [O]ver the years, the Commission’s secretive selection process has become increasingly controlled by the Missouri Bar Association, an organization with close ties to liberal special interest groups. As a result, the three finalists chosen by the Commission to replace retiring Justice White have [activist] records. ... Faced with choosing from among three unacceptable candidates, Republican Governor Matt Blunt criticized the Commission’s highly politicized, backroom selection process.But not to worry. The Associated Press reports that incoming ABA president H. Thomas Wells "is enlisting the help of retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to study threats to fair and impartial state courts."read more
original article