<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.showmedaily.org/2007/05/the-missouri-no.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.showmedaily.org/2007/05/the-missouri-no.html</link>
	<description>Advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for Missouri public policy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 19:05:30 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Charlie Rogers</title>
		<link>http://www.showmedaily.org/2007/05/the-missouri-no.html/comment-page-1#comment-3064</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie Rogers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:42:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.showmeliving.org/daily/?p=125#comment-3064</guid>
		<description>Those proposals would make the plan worse, not better; the purpose of the staggered term is to insure that no governor can &quot;stack&quot; the commission to insure that only his/her supporters are nominated, and the purpose of requiring non-lawyer members is to dilute the influence of lawyers, not to enhance it.  For example, if Gov. Nixon were to appoint all the members of the Appellate Nominating Commission and happened to pick Democratic trial lawyers, that could be expected to result in nominees highly regarded by such folks, but detested by the opponents of the non-partisan plan.  The commissions are carefully structured to minimize the impact of partisan politics; obviously such politics cannot be altogether eliminated.  More than a decade ago, long before the present drive to eliminate the plan was hatched, a Republican governor would routinely tell &quot;his&quot; members of the commissions who he wanted on, and who he did not want on, the panel of nominees.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Those proposals would make the plan worse, not better; the purpose of the staggered term is to insure that no governor can &#8220;stack&#8221; the commission to insure that only his/her supporters are nominated, and the purpose of requiring non-lawyer members is to dilute the influence of lawyers, not to enhance it.  For example, if Gov. Nixon were to appoint all the members of the Appellate Nominating Commission and happened to pick Democratic trial lawyers, that could be expected to result in nominees highly regarded by such folks, but detested by the opponents of the non-partisan plan.  The commissions are carefully structured to minimize the impact of partisan politics; obviously such politics cannot be altogether eliminated.  More than a decade ago, long before the present drive to eliminate the plan was hatched, a Republican governor would routinely tell &#8220;his&#8221; members of the commissions who he wanted on, and who he did not want on, the panel of nominees.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

