Should we vote for judges?

[Glassfan]

That's a problem - judges at a high level like that shouldn't be "liberal" or "conservative". The law (tm) should supersede any sort of political bias these people have.

Yeah, that's my point, I don't like appointed judges.

 

[warpus]

The thing is, at the highest level, they're basically deciding what the law is

Aren't they relying 100% on precedent and what's written in the constitution?

 

[Takhisis]

Well, if you've committed a crime, than Yes.

At the state and national level, liberals and conservatives alternate control of the government every four to eight years, so both sides get their turn.

I meant as a country. If your judges are going to change every few years depending on whether the obfuscatingly stupid American electorate votes Republican or Democrat you're screwed.

Aren't they relying 100% on precedent and what's written in the constitution?

The judges set the precedent.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Aren't they relying 100% on precedent and what's written in the constitution?

Yes, but the constitution is purposely vague and open, so when it comes to deciding things, they have to offer up their own interpretations.

Those interpretations are where political beliefs/any beliefs filter in.

 

[.Shane.]

A moderator spamming?

Ummm...

Its a horrible horrible idea and it is a violation of the checks and balances that are built into the US model of governance. In fact, I think its a subversion of republican form of govt.

 

[downtown]

Judges are elected mostly at the municipal and county level, and rule mostly on law-and-order issues. Guilty or not guilty. They are less explicitly prejudiced.

This is a big reason why I think electing them is silly. How is joe public going to be able to know which of the two lawyers is better at judging?

 

[duckstab]

Yeah, that's my point, I don't like appointed judges.

I just don't see how having judges elected makes any difference in regard to political bias. Here in Texas we elect our judges and our judiciary tends to follow prevailing popular values which, at least in the last 20 odd years, are reliably conservative. If our judges were appointed instead, well, our legislature is Republican-dominated, so what's the difference?

One of the main functions of the judiciary is as a check on the power of the majority. The majority gets to make the laws -- they're not allowed to run roughshod over everyone else's rights in the process. They still have to follow the Constitution, and an independent judiciary is the best way to achieve that. Having judges stand for election precludes such independence.

The appointment of judges for political reasons is a problem, but there are things we could do to correct that. In addition to doing away with lifetime appointments, we could impose a higher bar on candidates - require so many years of trial experience, for example. It would take some doing, but at least in theory an appointment process could become one which were based as much as possible on merit and not on ideology.
Having judges sit for election, on the other hand, will always be inherently political.

 

[Dachs]

This is a big reason why I think electing them is silly. How is joe public going to be able to know which of the two lawyers is better at judging?

How is Joe Public going to have a modicum of knowledge about any of the things he's voting on? How's this any different from voting on, say, a bond to expand the local school district's budget?

 

[Evie]

Regularly elected judges are a grave violation of one of the most important tenets of a good judiciary.

Judges must be independent. Not independent as the political allegiance - first that's impractical nonsense, second political allegiance of judges is only of marginal importance, regardless of how much of a show the United States make of it.

I mean independent here in the sense that, once a judge is in place, they must be free to make their decision with no other concern than 1)The judge's perception of the law (written law, case law, fundamental rights), and 2)The facts of the case, that is those facts admissible in a court of law. Things like "How will this case affect my odds of reelection?" and "How will this case affect my campaign finance" are anathema to judicial independence, yet almost unavoidable in an elected judiciary (unless the appointment is permanent/until retirement, in which case election is no worse an appointment method than executive appointment.

Fundamentally, judicial independence means that a judge should only be removable from office upon reaching a mandated retirement age, or for grave ethical violations (as judged by a group of other independent judges). Never for failing to please either political masters OR the electorate.

The way I see it, the only difference between the people, the executive and a king having the power to remove a judge who doesn't make the "right" decisions is the number of tyrants controlling the kangaroo court.

 

[Cutlass]

Aren't they relying 100% on precedent and what's written in the constitution?

Who do you think sets that precedent in the first place? And not all cases are close enough to old cases for precedent to apply. And in any case, the law needs to evolve.

It's only rarely that we get a Scalia that makes all law up as he goes along.

 

[Ayatollah So]

We don't vote for judges here and the legal system is much healthier. Judges are specialists in the law, they should be judged by fellow specialists, not by us.

MOAR DETAILS plz. I was wondering if something like judges appointing their successors and/or peers could work.

Judges are elected mostly at the municipal and county level, and rule mostly on law-and-order issues. Guilty or not guilty. They are less explicitly prejudiced.

I think you're living in the Good Old Days. Judicial campaigns are becoming big money events. With the current version of "democracy" in the USA, I see judicial elections as a problem. Unless and until we stop inferring from Money Talks to Therefore it's Free Speech!, appointment is slightly less awful than direct election.

Yes, but the constitution is purposely vague and open, so when it comes to deciding things, they have to offer up their own interpretations.

Those interpretations are where political beliefs/any beliefs filter in.

This. Any easy cases - where the law is crystal clear - have already been resolved without reaching the upper appeals courts or the Supreme Court. There is no Platonic Realm of Statute Meaning (sorry, Park ) to consult for The Right Answer to hard cases. Nor will appealing to "the" intent (of a many-person legislature negotiating compromises?!) of a law decide them.

 

[Camikaze]

How can judges be apointed by the executive? Isnt there separation of powers there in Australia?

Speaking of High Court judges, they are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, who acts on the recommendation of the Attorney-General. The Governor-General is the technical executive, though not the actual executive. The Attorney-General is part of the actual executive, the Cabinet. They are statutorily obliged to consult the state Attorneys-General. I don't know too much about the process, but it's not like it results in partisan appointments.

In any case, where would any judicial appointing body derive its power from? The executive.

Aren't they relying 100% on precedent and what's written in the constitution?

It is said that a good judge can come to any decision they want. Precedent, statutes and even the constitution require interpretation, and though interpretation is bound by certain rules and standards, it's still ultimately fairly subjective and discretionary in a lot of cases.

MOAR DETAILS plz. I was wondering if something like judges appointing their successors and/or peers could work.

That wouldn't have worked very well for getting any representation of people other than old, white men in the judiciary.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Then again, judicial bias isn't always what it's cracked up to be.

The ID movement was pretty surprised when judge Jones ruled against them in Kitzmiller.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

In any case, where would any judicial appointing body derive its power from? The executive.

Well speaking about the "material power" so the policial power needed to enforce judicial decission, yes. It would come someway from the executive since policial forces are organically dependent from the executive, however policial forces functionally depends on judges when working under judge´s autorithy. Anyway formally, in a system with separation of powers, judicial power cant come from the executive. It must be at the same level as the excutive and both (specially the executive) under the legislative power (the parlament and its laws), which is the direct expression of the popular will. This is the way it is in Spain at least.

Speaking about judges, i totally agree with Oda Nobunaga´s posts. Warranting judges independence unavoidably means they cannot be removed neither by popular elections nor by the executive, but only in an ordinary judicial proccess by other judges and according to the law.

 

[Miles Teg]

If we didn't elect our judges, how would the voices of champions of the people like Roy Moore be able to rise up and fight against the godless communist judicial elite?

 

[Disgustipated]

I vote pretty randomly for judges. Most family court judges I have never heard of, and I expect I'd only see them if I had a custody battle. The only judges I know of are those who handle high profile crimes and murders such as Judge Bonaventure.

I still prefer this system, however. Because it's easier to remove bad judges (the media usually reports gross abuse of power). The last thing we need is more public officials that can't be removed.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So election day is in a few days here in Illinois. In addition to finding a way to vote for Rick Santorum, I'm supposed to vote for a few local offices...my statehouse seat, and a bunch of judges.

There are three candidates running for judge in my area. All three went to competitive law schools. All three have significant legal experience. All three are of the same political party. I think it's fair to say that I'm a very politically informed person, and I have absolutely no idea how to judge (ha!) which of these three should be my local judge. I even asked two of the candidates that, and neither gave a particularly satisfying answer (deferring to endorsements? baaaah).

My neighborhood is dominated by recent immigrants and working class folks. I don't think very many people in our area have the background, or even the inclination, to determine between different judicial candidates. HOWEVER, our judges are now responsible to their communities for their decisions. If we could, as a community, determine that a guy sucked, it wouldn't be hard to get him out.

What do you think? Is there a value on being able to vote for judges, or should we leave that an appointed position?

Why not a compromise: judges are appointed by, say, the Attorneys General, but can be removed by a Vote of No Confidence referendum by the community he serves.

 

[Evie]

That might just be a spectacular case of "Worst of both worlds".

A judge should not have to think of his job security (beyond ethical concerns) when making rulings.

 

[Verbose]

When Justices are appointed, they are certain to have the political prejudices of the executive who appoints them. Elected judges on the other hand, more closely reflect community standards.

Appointed Justices usually serve for life, so you're stuck with them even as society changes, and they get old and senile (RBG). Judges who are elected and serve terms can be removed if they become unacceptable to the community.

The point is precisely to have specialist professional servants of the law, an entire cadre. That makes them independent of the other branches of government, and that's the whole point. They serve the law, exclusively, and this professional cadre makes the appointments of their own best and brightest.

Now, that might feel alien to US concepts, and it's not perfect. Otoh, had you seen for instance the way Spanish, Italian or French investigative judges, and courts, go after crooked politicians and mobsters, you might actually come around.

 

[otago]

Is the so called US supreme court a court or a political body ?
In the USA at this moment you have five conservative types and four Democratic leaning types on the so called court.
Now in countries with the Westminster system I doubt if the political leanings of any high court judges are known.