I see how it could seem severe, but first, you're mis-stating things. They're rated "not recommended" -- NOT "not qualified." The ones who decline to participate are rated "not recommended" not because they have declined to be rated by some organization, but because they have declined to be rated by their peers and clients. Who else should rate them?
There is only one set of people a judge deals with in a professional capacity: Attorneys and their clients. The attorneys are plainly a bipartisan group and the only people who know when a judge is fudging it, screwing up, and so on. They are on all sides of the fence but one: the majority will dislike inconsistent, corrupt, and incompetent judges, because they have to go before them and wonder every time who's going to win, even when they have a great case.
That said, if you still have room for doubt, the web page clearly states the reason for a 'not recommended' rating and makes it quite clear where the judge or candidate declined to participate. They provide the information to make your own judgment in such situations.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-31 06:01 pm (UTC)There is only one set of people a judge deals with in a professional capacity: Attorneys and their clients. The attorneys are plainly a bipartisan group and the only people who know when a judge is fudging it, screwing up, and so on. They are on all sides of the fence but one: the majority will dislike inconsistent, corrupt, and incompetent judges, because they have to go before them and wonder every time who's going to win, even when they have a great case.
That said, if you still have room for doubt, the web page clearly states the reason for a 'not recommended' rating and makes it quite clear where the judge or candidate declined to participate. They provide the information to make your own judgment in such situations.