(Re) order in the court.

Laughing with, or at? I didn't pay much attention to it, but Harvard Law alumni, and Mexican Supreme Court Justice Alfredo Gutiérrez Ortiz Mena, got a hearty set of chuckles from a panel dicussing the judicial reforms in Mexico, when he described the requirements for election as having a mere 4 out of 5 on what he called the “law boards”, references from five neighbors, and a couple years of legal practice.

At least in pop culture, Harvard educated lawyers are either arrogant narcissistic (but very sharp) twits who look down on us mortals... or smart people who do their homework and do not suffer fools gladly. The former might account for the panel yukking it up with Ortiz Mena, although the latter – scoffing at the hapless student who failed to do the required reading – would have been more appropriate.

As it is, while I'm not sure what Ortiz Mena meant by “law boards”, yes... there is a test, although – as we've learned – being able to pass a test just means you're good at taking tests. And 80% on that the “Uniform Bar Examination” in the United States is 280/400 or 70%, so it's not like unqualified lawyers are going to be included in the pool of likely candidates for any judicial position.

So, aside from passing this secondary bar exam, there are those “five references from your neighbors”. Or, let's be real. Those references are just the first step to even being given a nomination. Not like your mom, or third grade teacher's recommendations are going to count for much. References from your peers... you know, other legal experts, or experts in the workings of the court in which you are looking to take a position. These are federal courts of all kinds. A criminal law expert is not going to be in the running for an Argraian Reform or Commerical court.

Which is only the first step. The self-selected candidates will then be evaluated. For the Supreme Court, the candidates will be an equal number of nominees evaluated by the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. Even then, it's no guaranee any specific person is going to be on the ballot. Should there be more qualified candidates for a given judicial position than the ballot permits (under rules set by the Electoral Institute and Tribunal) there will be a random “tombola” (bascially, picked the names of the candidates out of a hat) before offering the people a say at the ballot box on who will be placed on the bench.

Could the system be “tweaked”? No doubt, although it's difficult to see how. What's annoying is that there is an assumption in the United States (and elsewhere) that this will “politicize” the courts. And, at a time when an issue in the upcoming US elections is which political party will be choosing judges. Something obviously considered here: judicial elections will have NO PRIVATE FUNDING.. not from political parties, not from “donors”, not even from the candidate themselves. Each candidate will receive an equal amount of funding, and – as is proposed – standardized “campaigning”: likely media presentations with just their photo, name, qualifications, and maybe a short statement of principles.

No, you aren't going to see billboards or bus-stop benches with “Better elect Saul”, nor will Gus Frain be bankrolling any candidates. Let alone any particular political group.