Judicial Review, n. A song-and-dance routine; mummery. Often spelled "revue" and accompanied by a smorgasbord. A process of immense cost-benefit value to the public in that it combines author and critic in the same judge. To be compared with "law revue" which does not depend on talent.
Robert M. Jarvis Amicus humoriae: an anthology of legal humor, Carolina Academic Press, 2003

   Like attorneys misconduct judicial misconduct can take many various forms, however, all the various forms manifest the same way — judge elevating self above the law in personal conduct or in making biased decisions. Let take, for example, former Georgia chief judge of the Superior Court, Amanda F. Williams. She told attorneys “sit down and shut up”, jailed a defendant for using the words “baby momma” and detained offenders “indefinitely” without access to lawyers. Or Nancy E. Smith, a Justice of the Appellate Division, State of New York, who "wrote a letter on her judicial stationery to the New York State Division of Parole, expressing support for an inmate who had been convicted of vehicular manslaughter for driving a boat into another boat, resulting in the death of two people". Or Curtissa Cofield, Superior Court Judge  in Connecticut, who while DUI sideswiped an occupied state police cruiser parked at a construction site in Glastonbury and while black herself told black arresting officer with racial taunts, referring to him as "the head Niger in charge". Several years later, after being moved from the Criminal into Juvenile Division by the Connecticut Judicial Review Council, judge Cofield failed to issue rulings in 10 cases that delayed for up to a year the placement of abused or neglected children in permanent homes even the law requires such placements to be made 120 days after their cases on charges of parental abuse or neglect were heard.
    While one cannot chose a judge for his case, in theory it is possible to ask a judge to recuse him/herself if you have knowledge of previous judicial misconduct or conflict of interest judge has in your case. The problem is that this decision is left up to judge's conscience, which is rarely tell judge that he/she will be impartial. However, if judge does not recuse and make a decision that is seemingly biased an appeal will have more chances to succeed if judge was asked to recuse him/herself. In absence of such request appeal on the ground of judicial bias has practically zero chances for success.
   Unfortunately, most states are very secretive about the judicial conduct. Practically no State Commission on Judicial Conduct reports any previous complaints filed against judges. While the Commissions admonish judges such instances are rare — for example, Connecticut in 24 years history of the Connecticut Judicial Review Council admonished judges only 12 times even during last 7 years (2006-2012) it received on average more than 100 complaints per year. Most Commissions' annual reports do not even have mentioning of admonished judges' names. Thus your best bet is to search Internet or if you have access to services such as LexisNexis at your public library, search periodical for information about the judge.

    After retiring from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor committed herself to two things she cares passionately about: judicial independence and civics education. Through the “Sandra Day O’Connor Project on the State of the Judiciary” at Georgetown Law School she had a series of conferences co-sponsored by the Aspen Institute in 2006 through 2009 dedicated to subject of judicial independence. As her project at Georgetown Law School neared conclusion in 2010, Justice O’Connor wanted to take the next step and begin fostering change directly at the state level. On December 8, 2009, she launched the O’Connor Judicial Selection Initiative at IAALS.
      Today Judicial Performance Evaluation (JPE), one element of the O'Connor Judicial Selection Plan ("Plan"), implemented in various form and exists in 17 states and the District of Columbia as an official program.

  What are the key points of the O’Connor Judicial Selection Plan?
The O’Connor Judicial Selection Plan is a model plan for selecting and retaining judges, consisting of four elements that balance the need for fair and impartial courts with the need for public accountability and transparency:
• Nomination by an independent, politically balanced citizens commission following a transparent application and interview process
• Gubernatorial appointment of a commission nominee
• Regular performance evaluations by persons who interact with judges in the courtroom and the office
• Regular retention elections with voters having easy access to judges’ performance evaluations so they cast an informed vote
  

What are the situation with implementation of the O’Connor Judicial Selection Plan?
In 7 states (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, New Mexico, Tennessee, Utah), all four elements of the O’Connor Plan are used in selecting and retaining at least some judges.
• In 3 states (Alaska, Colorado, and Utah), all four elements are used in selecting and retaining all judges.
• In 3 states (Arizona, Missouri, Tennessee), all four elements are used in selecting and retaining appellate court judges and, with the exception of Tennessee, some or all trial court judges.
• In 1 state (New Mexico), the governor’s appointee may be challenged in a partisan election, followed by subsequent retention elections.

What could be done to spread this most progressive plan that will improve quality of judicial system, prevents cronyism, reduce political influence and corruption in our courts?
    We, citizens of the States, have to make sure that the legislature in all states becomes aware about our desire to have fair and impartial courts administering justice by knowledgeable judges independent from political and financial influence of corrupt politicians and corporations. Judges who distinguish people from corporations, who know that they are public servants and not corporate attorneys. Judges who are not afraid and hide from public  accountability behind life time appointments and confidentiality of investigations of their misconduct. Judges who defend Constitution of the States and the Country even if that might cost them a comfortable job or retirement, like any US Citizen swears to bear arms even if it might cost him or her life.
 
Start or sign a petition demanding change judicial selection

Your grassroots campaign for Change begins here

Start Your Petition on MoveOn.org