Just so you know, its not often that I agree with Hank Grezlak, the editor-in-chief of The Legal Intelligencer. However, he makes a valid point that booting all of the judges up for retention is a stupid idea and will lead to more cronies and political hacks on the judicial benches, not less.

I’ll admit that ever since the public decided to take a flame-thrower to certain elements of Pennsylvania’s government in the wake of the pay-raise fiasco, I’ve often been amused, and in some cases downright pleased, to see various politicians and judges forced to realize that they are essentially public employees who actually serve at the discretion of the people.

For me, the pyrotechnics have been heart-warming. It’s not often that you get to see the Powers That Be in Pennsylvania shook up. Or taken to task for Pennsylvania’s clubby political culture, with all its wink-winks and midnight legislative deals done when the state’s taxpayers are home in bed.

While I was in favor of the judges getting a raise, I thought it came about in a lousy way that undercut the public’s confidence in our state Supreme Court. I thought the high court’s pay-raise decision, which gave the judges back their raises after the Legislature repealed the pay raise in the face of public outrage, was a horrible opinion that only worsened the public’s confidence in the courts.

I ripped the justices over the opinion. I was critical of the way Chief Justice Ralph Cappy handled the pay raise. I didn’t pull any punches and I took some heat for it. So I’m hardly a press agent for the judges.

Having said all that, I have only one question for the folks at PACleanSweep, who have advocated throwing out all the judges up for retention: Are you guys nuts, or just plain stupid?

The idea of throwing out every single judge up for retention is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. If their initiative is successful, it will weaken our courts horribly, and in an ironic twist given that PACleanSweep seems to model itself as a reform group, it will only lead to more political cronyism in our courts.

Can you follow what I’m saying PACleanSweepers? Your move will only make the environment you despise worse.

If all those judges get removed, who do you think is going to fill that vacuum? Under those circumstances it won’t be the Pennsylvania legal community’s best and brightest. I guarantee it. PACleanSweep says on its Web site that any appointments to fill the vacancies “will certainly be qualified.” Dream on. “Judges who actually care about the Constitution?” You’ll see a ton of political hacks and has-beens and never-wases.

Why is that? Because all those judicial vacancies will need to be filled in a short time frame and filled by one man – Gov. Edward G. Rendell.

PACleanSweep might not realize this, but Rendell was involved in the pay raise and signed off on it, not that it seems to hurt his poll numbers or his position with them.

Rendell has many fine qualities. But he comes from Philadelphia politics, which holds a patent on deal-cutting, cronyism and nepotism. If you think, with that many vacancies, and that much of a strain on the system, that he’s going to appoint nothing but great legal minds who don’t have any hardwired political connections, then you are truly nuts.

And why give so much power to one man? I thought PACleanSweep was a good-government, pro-democracy movement. Sounds to me like they’d be more at home in North Korea, at least when it comes to picking judges.

The political wolves are absolutely licking their chops at the prospect of 60-some appointments in such a short time frame. Forget all the good judges you will lose – and there are plenty, not that I think PACleanSweep has done any real homework to determine that – the replacements will be 10 times worse. They won’t be good judges, and they’ll be more beholden to the political establishment than you could ever imagine.

It’s fine, given the system we have, to say: “Retention votes aren’t a given.” And they shouldn’t be.

But to vote no on all of the judges simply because they took the pay raise? That’s ridiculous. If you want to be mad about the pay raise, at least as far as the judges go, then Cappy is your man. I could even understand the reasoning if they wanted to vote out the judges who sued to get the raise back. But to blame all the judges for the raise is simple-minded.

The way to get in PACleanSweep’s good graces seems to be to find a way to give back the money.

So let me get this straight: If you’re a good judge who took the money you should be automatically voted out, but if you kneel before PACleanSweep and give back the money, you’re OK, regardless of whether you’re a good judge or not? How does that make any sense? Why should whether a judge accepts a pay raise or not be the sole deciding factor? Remember, these judges answer to the Supreme Court. Once the justices ruled on the pay raise decision, the lower court judges were bound to obey and follow the ruling. That’s the way our system works.

A retention vote should be based on the balance of that judge’s service on the bench during the last 10 years, not one single issue, particularly one that has very little to do with most of these judges’ performances.

Voters should weigh the pros and cons of each judge. If people want to count the pay raise against a judge, that’s their prerogative, but they shouldn’t ignore how a judge has actually performed on the bench. That’s what matters most.

The problem with PACleanSweep’s logic is that it doesn’t distinguish between good and bad judges. It only looks at the pay raise. I doubt whether PACleanSweep could tell a good judge from a bad one.

Movements that embrace absolutism are just forces of tyranny waiting to happen.

If PACleanSweep truly wants to reform the courts, then it needs to stop focusing solely on the pay raise. It should look at each and every judge and evaluate them on several factors.

Focus on appearance issues. Focus on the chumminess between some judges and members of other branches of government, or certain lawyers. Focus on how judges treat the lawyers and litigants who come before them. Focus on the quality of their work. Are they fair? Are they objective and impartial? Do they demonstrate good judgment? Do they have the guts to rule the way they believe the law requires them to, even if they are going to get a ton of criticism?

Blind rage will not reform our courts or our government. The system needs to be changed. That system won’t be changed just by throwing out a bunch of people and sticking new ones in.