We need better basis to judge our judges

The Illinois system of voting to retain or not retain judges is an empty gesture.

We have no basis for making a decision concerning sitting judges except for the evaluation offered by the various legal groups.

Judges are told to tell the public nothing about personal opinions.

In defense of this practice, Judge Valerie Ceckowski says, "It is not a matter of what you personally believe, because your personal opinions do not enter into it."

Perhaps the judges' personal beliefs don't enter in, but certainly their personal philosophies do. Otherwise why do courts so often offer a split decision on any given case?

A different philosophy causes them to differ in evaluating a case.

For example, Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsberg would both be listed by the Illinois law groups as "highly qualified." Yet they frequently vote on opposite sides of a case.

Simply knowing that a judge is "highly qualified" is not enough information to allow me to make an informed decision.

There are judges who claim to believe that the constitution is a living document, and there are judges who are constructionists.

In theory, legislators write the law and judges interpret the law. But judges who believe the constitution is a living document are making laws and, therefore, I need to know their positions and beliefs just as I need to know what legislators believe.

If the only information to which we have access is the opinion of various legal groups as to whether a judge is qualified, then we might as well let the legal groups decide instead of asking the public to vote.

Bottom line: We need more information on which to base our voting, more information than "qualified/not qualified" or "recommended/not recommended."

Louis Bowers

Mount Prospect