"All the rights secured to the citizens under the Constitution are worth nothing, and a mere bubble, except guaranteed to them by an independent and virtuous Judiciary, " said Andrew Jackson in 1822.

But independent from whom? Certainly from the other branches of government, according to the framers of our Constitution. "There is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers, " wrote Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers in 1788.

But independent from the people? To a certain degree, yes.

When we rise in the courtroom to the entrance of a judge cloaked in black robe and solemn mystique, we rise not to the person, who outside the courtroom may have trouble hailing a cab. We rise not to honor his personal opinion, which may mirror or be contrary to our own. And we do not rise to honor a campaign victor, who rather must preside, through judicious constraint, over battles of legal argument. We rise to honor an ideal. By design, this ideal is separate from the people; at least from their selfish interests.

That ideal, in all of its humble self-effacement, has taken a turn toward self-promotion, as evidenced by Wisconsin 's recent Supreme Court elections.

The black cloak is threatened to become a side-show magician 's cape. And the magician 's assistant -- special interest groups -- employ illusion, subterfuge, and slight of hand to promote their self interests. The process has largely become entertainment. Bad entertainment.

Ads run by special interest groups to "inform " the voter fit seamlessly into that vast depository for the cultural phenomena we call entertainment.

The ads resemble miniature episodes of Law and Order, complete with dramatic entrance, somber undertones, and creative characterizations -- most recently the juxtaposition of a Supreme Court justice with the image of an incarcerated criminal. We are left with an unflattering image of a criminal justice system gone awry.

One proposed answer to this sordid affair is to select judges through merit selection, which picks judges based on performance -- judicial, not showmanship. And the selection process -- confirmed by an elected body -- is still accountable to the will of the people, not the wealth of the people.

Opponents of this system argue that judges should be accountable to the electorate, that we should trust the voters. The Anti-Federalist Papers rightly pointed out, "the supreme court judicial ought to be liable to be called to account, for any misconduct, by some body of men, who depend upon the people for their places. "

But the issue is not whether we can trust the people, but whether we can trust the process by which they are properly informed. The answer is a resounding, "no. "

Evaluating judges through the tinted glasses of special interests is like watching episodes of Jerry Springer to evaluate social discourse.

The framers of our Constitution envisioned the judiciary to be an independent branch of government, designed to interpret law and apply enforcement.

In this vein, we look for the judiciary to be above the fray of partisan politics. We elect the Executive and Legislative branches through spirited competition, but look to the judiciary as impartial buffer between the two.

Our current process undermines that impartiality. Supreme Court candidates spend campaign time accusing the other of judicial activism; then actively pursue their own election based on a populist agenda.

The process is saturated with both real and perceived conflicts, and that 's even before the money slides under the door.

Nothing lubricates the gears of judicial activism and gums up public trust as does money. It pays the cost of bad entertainment -- ad agencies, creative talent, and air time -- and fuels the fire of cynicism.

The solemn trust we invest in our judiciary lies at the very foundation of our society. We can rise to honor that ideal, or rise to applaud a disreputable sideshow.

Frydenlund lives in Prairie du Chien; efrydenlund@centurytel.net.