TWO TRADITIONAL METHODS FOR APPOINTING JUDGES ARE UNRESTRAINED GUBERNATORIAL APPOINTMENT, AS TYPIFIED UNTIL RECENTLY BY NEVADA'S METHOD OF FILLING IN-TERM DISTRICT AND SUPREME COURT VACANCIES, AND THE HISTORIC FEDERAL METHOD OF FILLING DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT COURT VACANCIES THROUGH APPOINTMENTS SUITABLE TO SENATORS OF THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL PARTY. WHILE THE MERIT SELECTION PROCEDURES CONSIDERED DO NOT SUPPLANT THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY OF CHIEF STATE AND FEDERAL EXECUTIVES TO MAKE JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS, THEY PROVIDE FOR SCREENING COMMITTEES DESIGNED TO ASSURE THAT ONLY THE MOST QUALIFIED PERSONS WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR APPOINTMENTS TO JUDGESHIPS. EXPERIENCES IN NEVADA AND UTAH, AS WELL AS OTHER CIRCUITS INDICATE THAT (1) NEW STATE AND FEDERAL MERIT SELECTION SYSTEMS ARE LIKELY TO BECOME POLITICAL ARENAS, UNDERMINING THEIR INTENDED STATUS AS IMPARTIAL FORUMS FOR DETERMINING THE MERITS OF POTENTIAL APPOINTEES; (2) AS POLITICAL FORUMS, MERIT SELECTION THREATENS THE MORALE OF THOSE WHO WOULD COMPETE FOR JUDGESHIPS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR QUALIFICATIONS ALONE AND DESTROYS PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT'S PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE; (3) A MERIT SELECTION SYSTEM IS MEANINGLESS UNLESS STEPS ARE TAKEN TO ASSURE THAT MEMBERS OF THE SCREENING FORUMS ARE PROPERLY MOTIVATED TO MAKE NONPOLITICAL DECISIONS; AND (4) IN THE FEDERAL MERIT SELECTION SYSTEM ALLOCATION OF SEATS ON A MULTI-STATE PANEL IS INEQUITABLE SINCE REPRESENTATIVES FROM LARGER STATES HAVE CONTROLLING POWER OVER THE FEW JUDGESHIPS ASSIGNED TO THE SMALLER STATES; AND (5) JUDICIAL SELECTION ON MERIT CAN ONLY FUNCTION EFFECTIVELY IF GUIDELINES ARE DEFINED AND SAFEGUARDS ESTABLISHED. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ARE OFFERED. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)