Reply #16: Appointed with legislative confirmation.

[BadgerLaw2010]

Elections depend on money and slogans. Our last State Supreme Court election in this state was not a shining moment. You also had the losing candidate who had no experience being a judge. I don't think that's a particularly good idea for higher courts.

Appointment can mean moonbats and corrupt and unqualified ones as well, but the legislature is SUPPOSED to do something about confirming those.

You also have a human capital problem. Basically, most people with ability do not want to be lower-level state judges. They can earn more with that law degree elsewhere - it's "safe," "easy" employment for someone with a law degree who knows he/she is marginal. They don't like to lose these jobs, so they try to be inoffensive to the public, which can frequently mean they aren't really ruling on the law.

I'm fairly sure the average, financially poor criminal defendent is stunned at what the legal system actually looks like when he has a real constitutional issue and his case goes to the Circuit Cort of Appeals or Supreme Court.

Otoh, the Federal bench is the dream career destination for a good chunk of the top of the national law school graduating class every year. These people may be ideological, but they are at least highly competent and motivated.

It would be good for the legal system if there was quality control and status on the state bench that at least approached the federal bench.