Mason teen on MTV
Arrest made in SWAT standoff
Madison girls in state semifinals
Home > Blogs > Ohio politics > Archives > 2009 > November > 20 > Entry
Chief Justice Moyer, allies promise campaign to change selection of Supreme Court justices
Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, the Ohio State Bar Association and the Ohio League of Women Voters want to change the way state Supreme Court justices are selected.
On Friday, Nov. 20, they announced that they will work to build a coalition to support a constitutional amendment to replace statewide elections of the justices with a new system where justices are appointed and stand for a retention election.
“Early next year we will propose a specific plan that we will take back to the partner organizations for formal consideration,” Moyer said in a press release.
The announcement came at the end of a two-day conference in Columbus, “A Forum on Judicial Selection: A Time for Action.”
“What we have learned these two days is that we can do better in Ohio,” Moyer said.
Moyer has said the current system needs to be replaced to remove the perception that campaign contributions influence judicial decisions.
For more information, click here.
Permalink | Comments (13) | Post your comment |
Comments
By mefty
December 25, 2009 3:53 AM | Link to this
I want to quote your post in my blog. It can? And you et an account on Twitter?
By Porfel
November 29, 2009 6:25 PM | Link to this
Dear Author www.daytondailynews.com ! Quite right! Idea excellent, it agree with you.
By Consider the facts
November 24, 2009 9:12 PM | Link to this
Mr Not A Sheeple, Moyer is a Republican. Illegal aliens can’t vote and nobody is trying to change that.
By We the People
November 23, 2009 10:28 PM | Link to this
In addition they must think that the people that vote are to ignorant to vote for the person OF THIER CHOICE! They think they know more than us. Stand up Ohioians against this kind of BS that is stripping you of your consitutional rights, that my and your forefathers fought and died for to attain and keep! NEVER let somebody take away your right to vote no matter whether you are a Democrat or Republican or some other politcal belief.
By We The People
November 23, 2009 10:21 PM | Link to this
WHy do they have a commitee to say we need to change the way all political postions are attained and let someone that already won by raising the most campaign funds appoint their friends and people that will owe them a return favor. WHAT THE HECK IS THE DIFFERENCE, NOT ONE BIT OF DIFERENCE EXCEPT WE LOSE MORE RIGHTS AS VOTERS AND CITIZENS!!!
By Mark
November 22, 2009 2:40 PM | Link to this
baabaaaaaa, I said “seems” because right now there is no firm plan that has been announced. I like the idea, but until there are details, I can’t cite any facts. All I was saying was I like it in theory. You don’t have to like my opinion, but please do not call me uneducated. I recommend watching the Frontline special “Justice for Sale,” although it probably won’t change your opinion, it does give plenty of food for thought on both sides of the issue. I don’t really like the idea of electing justices—but I’m not advocating political appointments for life either. A more merit based system would be the best option. It has been proven in other states that it imporves judicial integrity and independence from campaign money in judicial races. Simple as that.
By not a sheeple
November 22, 2009 6:21 AM | Link to this
Moyer says there’s a “perception” of contributions/influence peddling? NO YOUR HONOR {SNICKER}…..there is the “perception” that you want to cement your party’s power status in perpetuity. Isn’t Jennifer Brunner (your fellow Democratic political crony) also trying to make it easier for illegal aliens to register to vote? Your greed and avarice is clearly obvious.
By baabaaaaaa
November 22, 2009 6:15 AM | Link to this
Mark: you used the word “seem” or “seems” but you cited no FACTS. Your uneducated guess bears no weight when we are talking about corruption, nepotism and political cronyism in appointments. Your comment is a perfect example of why we need elected judges - otherwise, ignorant sheeple like yourself would simply follow the herd blindly bleeting as the power elites expect you (and the rest of us) to do.
By Ret. Law Enforcement
November 21, 2009 4:00 PM | Link to this
This is another attempt by the “elitist”, Moyer is president, who believe the “PEOPLE” are too stupid to pick their jurist. I say this, we will not stand still for you Justice Moyer or any other political hack manipulating an effort to take away our voice in the “THIRD” leg, the Judiciary, in our form of government. How dare you. We don’t need Johnny or Jane who couldn’t make it in private practice sit in the magistrate office etc…, work their way up through the bueacratic stairway of favoritism so they can be at the front for APPOINTMENT to supreme court judge.
By Leslie
November 21, 2009 10:16 AM | Link to this
I prefer the existing system to appointments. We the people need to quit giving up our voices. We do not want politicians picking our judges.
By B
November 20, 2009 8:48 PM | Link to this
wow, appointed judges, it works so well for Federal judgeships….unless the people appointing them are somehow non-political, it won’t be any better than it is now.
By Mark
November 20, 2009 6:28 PM | Link to this
We need fair, judicious justices on the bench…not just good fundraisers. The proposed system seems to have the potential to be an improvement. Many other states already use the proposed system or something similar and it seems to work for them.
By jj nelson
November 20, 2009 5:57 PM | Link to this
You can count on whatever party isn’t in control to propose a new method. Seems like it’s working fine to me!!