On judicial apmts reform - @SenatorMcDowell has done a lot of damage on this convincing people that the system is fit for purpose. There are endemic problems with the current system - here is a quick summary
1. JAAB currently has no role in vacancy for pres of a court

Also it is limited in that JAAB is not involved if a sitting judge wishes to apply for a higher judicial position.

2. there is no transparency with JAAB - we don't get enough information about the application process or why certain names were recommended when others were not

3. JAAB often does not limit political discretion - it is intended as a filtering mechanism but often does not even satisfy that limited function as it will often send many names to the Min for Justice - effectively leaving the choice to the Min

4. JAAB does not interview candidates or assess suitability, temperament or ability in any other way - even though they do actually have that power. This is very common in other jurisdictions and unclear why it is not done here

5. JAAB is dominated by lawyers, which has been shown internationally to lead to a lack of diversity among candidates being sent forward and indeed the 'mirror image' phenomenon where unconcsious bias plays a factor

6. The current criteria for judicial apmts are so vague - to have shown competence as a practitioner, to be suitable in character and temperament, and to be otherwise suitable - what does that even mean?

Also the notion that a good practitioner will automatically make a good judge is so old fashioned and nonsensical at this state - there are completely different competencies involved!

Finally the issue of appointing AGs to the bench is so problematic - first as we have seen today, it is done as a political reward which is a completely unfair basis on which to appoint a judge - and when sitting judges expressed an interest this is very problematic

Also, the former AG Judge is potentially biased in relation to many issues which might come before the SC if s/he has to sit on a case involved leg certified as constitution by him/her or on an arg that s/he has already made in representing the state on a case

There are so many issues here and it just makes me furious when people brush off the argument that judicial appointments reform is needed!