news-record.com

OPINION

Editorial: A better way to pick a judge

Thursday, October 29, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

 

A judicial election was held in Greensboro Tuesday, and all the voters were well-informed. Which made it a rarity.

But this wasn't a public election where few voters know anything about the candidates for judicial offices. Instead, it was a gathering of the Guilford County Bar, where lawyers had the job of selecting three nominees for a seat vacated by District Court Judge Patrice Hinnant, who was appointed to the Superior Court bench by Gov. Bev Perdue last month. The governor will make this appointment, too, but she must choose one of the three submitted by the local Bar.

Some 500 lawyers attended Tuesday's meeting in the Old Guilford County Courthouse to consider 14 candidates for the opening.

"There was so much buzz, I was concerned there'd be chaos," Bar President Richard Manger said Wednesday.

Instead, the process was brisk and orderly. All 14 hopefuls made dignified presentations, touting their qualifications, experience and commitment to justice. Balloting began within an hour. The top three were:

l Jan H. Samet, a High Point attorney with 35 years of private-practice experience, 275 votes;

l Michael K. Troutman of Greensboro, an assistant public defender with 16 years of legal experience, 92 votes;

l and Susan Yu O'Hale of Greensboro, an assistant district attorney with 18 years of legal experience, 85 votes.

Samet's overwhelming support among his peers warrants the governor's attention. No one has a greater interest in seeing good judges than the professionals who work in the courts.

Samet, 64, said he's long wanted to be a judge, but he's never been interested in politics. He wouldn't be comfortable raising campaign money and "wasn't comfortable giving money to judicial candidates," he said Wednesday.

Many talented attorneys who would make excellent judges feel the same. Elections force jurists to become politicians -- and the public sometimes votes for the best politicians, not necessarily the best judges.

The voters Tuesday were more likely to know the difference.

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

marcusk136

October 29, 2009 - 9:49 am EDT

Oh I see the pedestrian Swill are required to pay the taxes but they shouldn't expect the law to be applied by their kind but by the Esquires( is a term of British origin (from French "écuyer", squire), originally used to denote social status. The social rank of Esquire is that above gentleman)of the upper classes... silly me and I thought we had a WAR over that!!!!!
Yes we can't discern good men and women enough to vote for them.....

NobodyReally

October 29, 2009 - 3:00 pm EDT

Marcus - find a way to educate those voting and you might have a point. The system now is only a popularity contest or whomever has the most money wins (which you personally know about). However, what we have now are a bunch of moody women (10 women, 3 men, 1 vacant but was a woman), of which a couple have no clue what the law is and how it is to be applied. Therefore, we are getting decisions that have no basis in the law and to put it quite frankly, the poor man is getting screwed. (It has been said, you get the justice you can pay for.) Once you deal on a daily basis with the asinine antics of these people, then complain about how the proposal of appointing judicial officials is flawed.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search