Take our judges, please.

That's the unspoken punch line of the recent Los Angeles Times series titled "Justice vs. Juice," which went to great depths to focus on the ethically questionable decision-making, tawdry political fundraising and good-old-boy chumminess practiced by some of Southern Nevada's veteran members of the bench of justice.

Or is that the bench of juice?

It's hard to say after soaking up the well-researched but less than conclusive articles by Times reporters Michael J. Goodman and William C. Rempel. The fact the reporters relied on several sources of questionable motivation and undeniable sour grapes does little to lessen the impact of their years-long efforts. In an attempt to allow Southern Nevadans to decide for themselves on the issues raised, the Times articles are reprinted in today's edition of the Review-Journal.

Has this damning series opened a window of opportunity to make substantive change to an ailing justice system, or merely shined a light through the window on an imperfect but functioning justice system?

Sorry to disappoint the breathless optimists in the courts and media, but I'm betting that little within the system will reform. The faces of the players, however, are likely to change.

District Judges Nancy Saitta, Donald Mosley and Sally Loehrer have plenty of friends and defenders, but I'd be surprised if they were able to shake the stench of questionable behavior raised in the series.

Nor will senior District Judges Joseph Pavlikowski, Stephen Huffaker and James Brennan, who have done plenty of good work but now will be compelled to explain the damning details compiled in the Times series. The lack of oversight of senior judicial appointees needs to change, but don't bet the monthly mortgage that oversight is around the corner. Ironically, these are also the most experienced judges in Southern Nevada and were appointed to their positions.

Hardest hit of all are U.S. District Judge James Mahan and popular -- a bit too popular for propriety's sake, some would argue -- civil receiver George Swarts. Every lawyer I've interviewed recently has said essentially the same thing about both men. Mahan is one of the best judges they've ever observed, and Swarts is a very capable receiver who has been a human vacuum cleaner, sucking up cash and fees at a staggering pace.

Readers of the series will surely be disturbed, but they will be left to wonder whether any system of judicial selection is trouble-proof. And that's precisely my point to ponder.

Although local judges are elected in Nevada, and of necessity raise funds from the lawyers and citizens who come before them, the process of appointing judges is rife with political juice and pitfalls aplenty. In the case of federal Judge Mahan, his appointment is for life.

The truth that academics and neophytes hate to admit is that politics is an inseparable part of the justice system. Favoritism is real. Judges commonly genuflect to the wealthy, give deference to high-profile attorneys and rule on close calls for allies and supporters over critics.

"I like the independence of the judiciary that comes from being somewhat shielded from popular vote, like in the federal system," attorney Richard Wright says, but he adds that he's ambivalent about the elected and appointed systems. Both leave plenty of room for politics.

"I don't think I've ever met a judge who would not prefer to be appointed and then run against his record," attorney Dominic Gentile says. "That's not to say that's the better system."

New York, for instance, continues to struggle with its system of appointing judges because the state's political parties rule the process. No political juice, no appointment -- to no one's great surprise.

It's not so different in Nevada, where it's increasingly common for a sitting governor to fill an open seat on the bench with a political ally.

"You get bad judges in both systems, elected and appointed, and you get good judges in both systems," says attorney Stan Hunterton, who is also a member of the New York bar and is familiar with the Eastern-style brand of juice. "You get crooks in both systems; you get excellent judges in both systems."

Exactly.

Indictments of the system aside, Southern Nevada has a great many ethical and competent elected judges.

Our goal should be to root out the bums and shine a light on the juice inherent in the process.

John L. Smith's column appears Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail him at Smith@reviewjournal.com or call 383-0295.