In 2005:
The Federal courts had 253,273 civil cases filed.
The State courts had 16.7 MILLION.

The Federal courts had 92,226 criminal cases.
The State courts had 20.8 MILLION.

Plus, the state courts hear Domestic Relations and local Traffic and other cases the Feds never would.

There’s your 95%

http://www.uscourts.gov/judbus2006/contents.html
http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/csp/CSP_Main_Page.html

Unprecedented? A good case can be made that the judiciary has ALWAYS been “pressure[] … to make decisions that are based on politics.” Marbury? Dred Scott? Plessy? Lochner? The switch in time that saved the Nine? Brown? Roe v. Wade? How seriously can an argument based upon the premise that “pressure from interest groups to make decisions that are based on politics” is “unprecedented” be taken?

The system is imperfect, to be sure, but what system isn’t? Certainly, the situation in Virginia is no worse that many states — and, I would assert, a whole lot better than in many (my home state of Pennsylvania, for one) — but the alternative she proposes is one which merely exchanges one imperfect process for one which is a whole lot more imperfect, and certainly does NOT remove the possibility of abuse, aside from the fact that it is much less democratic. Have you ever tried to remove a bad judge in a retention election? My home county in Pennsylvania did, the Honorable Peter Krehel, who made an international name for himself in the 70s by advocating return of the stocks and the whipping post in the town square. We were stuck with him for ten years (he did so early in his term), and he nearly survived a retention election in 1985.

The problem of which you complain, VJP, is one which inevitably arises from a number of causes. The politicization of the judiciary is brought about by, inter alia: (1) an ever-increasing size and scope of government; (2) lazy legislators who write vague statutes necessitating judicial construction far beyond that which SHOULD be necessary; and (3) interest groups which seek societal change through the least democratic means, the courts.

I fail to see how making the judicial selection process LESS democratic is an improvement. It merely shifts the interest-group politics to a different, and far less public, venue.

select based on merit

Might as well ask that they select policies and laws based on merit, too . . .

I’ve long thought elected judges were a bad idea. Rather term appointments, long enough to go between at least a couple of administrations.