“Both the executive and legislative branches of state government also have made thinly veiled threats to the state’s appellate courts if they order more funding for K-12 schools in Kansas.

“The state already has made appointments to the Kansas Court of Appeals more political by eliminating the role of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission in reviewing applicants for those posts. Applying that same system to the Kansas Supreme Court would require a constitutional amendment, but some state officials are eager to pursue that change — especially if they don’t like the school finance ruling…

“What the critics don’t seem to understand is that courts should not — and should never — be in the business of responding to public opinion. The executive and legislative branches at both the state and national level are directly responsible to the public, but the judiciary is intended to be responsible only to the law of the land. It’s not a matter of majority rule…

“However, the moves that some in Kansas and the nation say would make the judiciary more ‘democratic’ actually would make the judiciary more political and even more likely to take on a legislative role of responding to a majority of voters. Certainly, direct election of judges has that impact. To a lesser degree, the same is true of an appointment system, like the one used for the Kansas Court of Appeals, in which judges are appointed by the governor through a closed process and confirmed by like-minded legislators.”

Read more here: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2015/jul/05/itor/