How are your judges selected?

Yes, that appears to be mostly similar to Australia, save that we have 7 separate crowns, so each state has its own Governor, not just Lieutenant-Governor. Appointments are similarly made by the Governor, on the advice of the Cabinet.

That's interesting. I guess I just assumed that as a federation, and one with more devolved powers at that, Canadian provinces all were separate crowns too. But then that might be awkward because of Quebec?

Also: I just recently realised the ACT doesn't have anyone serving a Governor role, like how the NT has an administrator to appoint and dismiss governments and give royal assent to bills and whatnot. That makes the ACT Legislative Assembly the only parliament in the country which dissolves itself and certifies its own legislation. Which I think is pretty neat.
 
Last edited:
In michigan some are elected and some are appointed. I have no idea how it's determined. But yeah, I don't know any of their names. I usually leave that part of the ballot blank. Same with board of trustee members for public universities. Actually I don't even know my state congress members names at all, doubt I could name one. I usually am interested in our mayor, county executive, governor and then the fed stuff like house rep, senators and president. I should probably learn a little more about my state reps.
 
Constitutional judges: Elected with a supermajority by the federal parliament and the federal council (each body elects half of the judges)
Federal judges: Elected by a judge election commission. Half of the members of this commission are the justice ministers from each state, the other half is elected by the federal parliament
State judges: Differs from state to state. In Bavaria, the judges are appointed by the state ministry of justice
 
In michigan some are elected and some are appointed. I have no idea how it's determined. But yeah, I don't know any of their names. I usually leave that part of the ballot blank. Same with board of trustee members for public universities. Actually I don't even know my state congress members names at all, doubt I could name one. I usually am interested in our mayor, county executive, governor and then the fed stuff like house rep, senators and president. I should probably learn a little more about my state reps.

They're actually all elected, but also all are appointed, either by party convention or governor. But they still have to win an election once appointed. The few exceptions are when one retires. Robert Young retired before his 8 year term was up, so Snyder got to appoint a replacement, whose seat will be up for election this year. This was done because Young didn't want to run again, which would have meant there was no incumbent in the seat. So Snyder and Young and Republicans basically agreed to have Young retire 1.5 years early so a Republican can be on the bench for 18 months building a reputation and approaching 2018 elections as an incumbent, instead of going into a 2018 election that looks good for Dems without an incumbent advantage by having Young fulfill the full 8 years and then retire.
 
Here we go, here's how the Australian government makes judicial appointments. I assume the states are each similar.

View attachment 505792
This. Although there are a few old appointees that probably bribed their way into the job, whether through economic means or political favours. Heydon is the bes known example of the latter; there are a few sitting magistrates in NSW who I am not stupid enough to name publicly who are well known to have bought their offices and pay the system back with a high rate of finding in the state's favour.
 
Well that's just being a conspiracy theorist. No-one seriously thinks Heydon 'bribed' his way into the job, politically or otherwise. He always remained fiercely independently minded. He just let it be known beforehand that he had the sort of judicial point of view shared by some executive-minded conservatives. And the NSW magistracy is hardly something anyone would want to buy their way into (nor is what you contend by any means 'well known').
 
Well that's just being a conspiracy theorist. No-one seriously thinks Heydon 'bribed' his way into the job, politically or otherwise. He always remained fiercely independently minded. He just let it be known beforehand that he had the sort of judicial point of view shared by some executive-minded conservatives. And the NSW magistracy is hardly something anyone would want to buy their way into (nor is what you contend by any means 'well known').
Heydon was straight up canvassing for the job by being as conservative as possible. He still rants about communism and the USSR to this day. And there were plenty of lawyers and magistrates on the take under Greiner, and some of them are still around.
 
There must be a better way. How do your judges get selected?

Not an expert on the matter but our judges are selected by an independent council. The members of this organ can only sit a limited term and they are hired from groups of different background within law to secure a diversity of experience. The exception is the leader of the supreme court whom is selected by the government when the previous one retires from the position.
The supreme court here is generally a lot less politicised than in the states as those things are usually delt with within parliament. Though I'm sure politics can and will play a role in some cases too.
So to add to what Snerk wrote:

These people elect our judges:
Or to be more precise, whenever there are any permanent judge positions that needs to be filled, these people give a prioritized and reasoned list of three candidates for each position. Formally the Justice Department can then modify the list, but in practice that doesn't happen, and finally the current government appoints the top candidate for each position (again, formally, the government can choose either of the three, but in practice they always choose the first one).

The members of the council are appointed by the government for 4-year terms, and may sit two terms. There has to be three judges, one private lawyer, one lawyer working in the administration, and two members who do not have legal education.

Lay judges on the other hand are appointed by the municipality government, for 4-year terms. To participate as judges in court cases, the necessary number of lay judges are randomly chosen from the list of already appointed lay judges in the municipality where the court is set.
  • Norwegian District courts usually have one professional judge for civil cases, and one professional judge and two lay judges for criminal cases. Especially serious cases may have two professional judges and three lay judges.
  • Norwegian Courts of appeals have three professional judges, or two professional judges and five lay judges.
  • Norwegian Supreme Court I described here.
Voting for judges through regular elections/popularity contests sounds like a seriously stupid thing to do.
 
Heydon was straight up canvassing for the job by being as conservative as possible. He still rants about communism and the USSR to this day. And there were plenty of lawyers and magistrates on the take under Greiner, and some of them are still around.
That's politics, not bribery. You were suggesting he gave something to the coalition in return for the job, other than a similar philosophy.

Greiner was 30 years ago, and the magistracy was reorganised as a result of the 80s. I don't think there are any (or many) magistrates left from the 80s in any case, given the mandatory retirement age.

Sovcit accusations of corruption are of course de rigueur against magistrates who have deigned to convict them, but that's pretty much the extent of complaints nowadays.
 
That's politics, not bribery. You were suggesting he gave something to the coalition in return for the job, other than a similar philosophy.

Greiner was 30 years ago, and the magistracy was reorganised as a result of the 80s. I don't think there are any (or many) magistrates left from the 80s in any case, given the mandatory retirement age.

Sovcit accusations of corruption are of course de rigueur against magistrates who have deigned to convict them, but that's pretty much the extent of complaints nowadays.
I'll go so far as to say that Roger Prowse made so many judgements in favour of drug dealers he was investigated himself. I'm from the same town as him, so I know for a fact the allegations against him were true. Again, not stupid enough to say what they are here; I had a friend make that mistake on Facebook, and it cost him some money.
 
In Spain, judges are selected by a selection comission of the General Council of the Judiciary. This Council has 20 members and is headed by the president of the country’s Supreme Court, who is selected by the Council itself. The 20 members of the Council are selected this way: 12 active judges selected by the parliament by a three-fifths majority (6 by the congress and 6 by the senate) from a number of candidates proposed by national judges asociations or by a number of judges individually and 8 (4 congres, 4 senate) among prestigious lawyers and jurists.
 
In France there's a very selective exam after your master's degree. You can only try to pass it 3 times, and have to be under a certain age. Then you enter a special school for future judges for 2.5 years, where you do lots of different things (including internships in France and abroad). Then you get to choose where you'll be sent to (best grades get first dibs), and get 4 months of intensive preparation to the specifics of that particular job.
 
In France there's a very selective exam after your master's degree. You can only try to pass it 3 times, and have to be under a certain age. Then you enter a special school for future judges for 2.5 years, where you do lots of different things (including internships in France and abroad). Then you get told where you'll be sent to, and get 4 months of intensive preparation to the specifics of that particular job.
It is about the same for Spain. All that procces is designed and supervised by the Selection Comission of the General Council of the Judiciary. Exams for judicature are known to be extremely hard, just a bit easier than notary. I tried it and failed, so know what i am speaking about.
 
Back
Top Bottom