Windypundit said on June 10, 2009  

Here's a tweak I like: I've previously floated the idea of assigning, say, a 3-judge panel to each trial and allowing each side to to bump one judge from the panel, so trials are always conducted by a judge who neither side sees as most objectionable.

You could probably then set some threshold where, say, any judge getting bumped more than 90% of the time over a 3-year period is removed from the bench. Or just remove the top 5% most-bumped judges each year.

There's probably some way to extend this to the appellate levels.

 Ken Lammers said on June 11, 2009  

I've heard of a similar system (which I believe is in operation in certain places, but not in Virginia) called "papering." A judge is appointed and either side can "paper" him, removing him without stating a reason and having another judge assigned. Each side can do this once, giving each an opportunity to remove a judge they perceive as poor.

 John V. Siskopoulos said on June 17, 2009  

I do not know the best system for selecting a judge. However, judges should be consistently scrutinized by active counsel who give feedback on the judge's performance. Any judge that continually receives low marks should be removed from the bench.