YOUR VIEWS: Better to appoint judges than vote for them blind

If anyone needed another reason for changing the way Alabama's judges are selected, News staff writer Eric Velasco's recent story, "Voters in dark on judicial choices," should supply one.

Most voters have no idea whom the candidates for judgeships are, or whether they are qualified. The only ones who have a good idea of how well judges -- or lawyers aspiring to be judges -- perform are the lawyers, police officers and judges who regularly work with them, and, to a much smaller extent, litigants and those accused of crimes.

An ordinary citizen not involved in the judicial system regularly cannot be expected to have such knowledge.

This is an excellent reason for Alabama to adopt essentially the same system established in the U.S. Constitution for the federal government. Judges should be appointed by the governor, and confirmed by the Legislature. Of course, a mechanism should exist, as it does now, for judges to be removed for misconduct or incompetence.

As reporter Velasco says, in Alabama, "Supreme Court justices spend millions of dollars on television advertising." A change to an appointment system for the state judiciary might be a loss for television stations, but would be a clear gain for everyone else.

It would be better for judges who would no longer have to spend much of their time raising money for elections. It would remove the appearance of conflict of interest when donors are involved in litigation.

It would be better for justice, and for the people of this state.

Richard C. Slagle

Bessemer

TORNADO RECOVERY: Tuscaloosa needs help from Bama

There has been much a lot of talk about the BCS National Championship game that was played in New Orleans, and, of course, everyone knows it cost an arm and a leg to attend it. It would seem that the University of Alabama will be making a great deal of money this year.

Now contrast how well the university is doing with the city in which it calls home.

Tuscaloosa is still a disaster zone. Personally, I believe that if the university invested more money in the city than it does, Tuscaloosa could be on a faster track to recovery than it is currently.

It has been more than eight months, and many parts of the city still look like the storm came through a week ago. Times are hard right now, but when you're a moneymaker like the University of Alabama, the university at least could give a quarter of the profits made off the championship game to help Tuscaloosa rebuild.

I'm sure the university is doing what it claims is the best it can do. But the city's largest moneymaker should step in for the community and do the right thing.

Daniel Spies

Vincent

OCCUPY PROTESTS: What do they think is fair?

The liberal media have pictured the protesters as "demanding" fairness from our capitalist system. What exactly would be considered fair? Just give the goods to the protesters who cannot afford to buy them?

Should the private and corporate owners of these goods who have worked or invested to produce and sell these goods forgo their profit and give it to these people? Are people who worked hard and made wise decisions with their money supposed to be ashamed that they are wealthy?

Should they give their wealth to people, or should they continue to contribute to charitable organizations that represent the truly less fortunate?

Then there are people like me. I am not wealthy, but I am comfortable. We contribute what we can, we volunteer, and we give back what we can afford. I live within my means.

Actually, isn't that what this is all about? These protesters, who the liberal media praise and protect, have wants and desires, and rather than work hard to get these things, they want someone else to simply give them to them. That's their definition of fairness.

Tony Robinson

Maplesville