Usually the Chief Justice positions are organizational. I have no problem with the seniority method, but some people aren't well suited to organizational/leadership duties.

Either the judges should nominate someone or they go through the political nomination process.

Courts are supposed to be more than less immune to politics, but how often do you think political consideration would trump organizational abilities?

and it's being voted on this tues. The repukes are hoping to change a 120+ year law/tradition that says the most senior justice will be the Chief Justice. Right now she's a Democrat AND a woman--double whammy. They, of course, want to seat a Bradley/Walker/Koch lackey and keep one there for all eternity. Our Wisconsin Supreme Court has been Teabaggerized and radicalized to the point that our state is lawless if you are a Republican with money.

some are great lawyers and can write policy but are not great leaders sometimes so I guess it would depend.

For example if a governor was Democratic in the 90's and today the governor is Republican. Seniority might be the better option as the older judges maybe more liberal due to the Democratic Governor in the 90's. That question is a huge depends.

I've heard that Justice Douglas was supposedly senile his last years on the bench. I have no idea if it was true of him or not, but it's possible for anyone.

In this state, though, the highest court is called the Supreme Judicial court because the legislature is sometimes called the Legislative Court.

I suppose the need to run for re-election reduces greatly the possibility that a judge who is severely incapacitated (mentally) will remain on the court.

although I suppose the former can affect the latter.

We have a justice in WI who tries to get his way by strangling other justices

Sounds like ground for recall or impeachment or whatever y'all do to your Justices. Even a DU jury would have put him in his place.

My sympathies. But I have no clue what to tell you.