Should we vote for judges?

[Camikaze]

The lower judges have nothing to do with politicizing the office. Even if every judge was appointed, in this partisan environment it would NEVER be about qualifications. Its silly to suggest that if only there were no judge elections then the next time the president nominated a supreme court justice the senators and representatives would suddenly quiz them on legal knowledge as opposed to their stances on hot button issues. Look at ANY office appointed by politicians, its ALWAYS about politics whether it be a judge a cabinet member or a head of a department.

That must be a problem peculiar to the US, because here most judicial appointments are certainly not political decisions, though they are carried out by the executive (there is something seriously wrong with an appointment system in which nominees to the judiciary are grilled on such hot button issues as you say, certainly, but that's a reflection on the US' peculiarities, not on the general concept of appointing vs. electing judges). On the other hand, judges who survive from election to election are always going to be political, by the very nature of their tenure. The entire basis of their authority becomes political when you are bringing elections into it. Judges become explicitly political figures. I don't think it is unreasonable at all to say that the politicising of the judiciary in such a way creates an environment in which judges are essentially forced into adopting some sort of political identify, and operating along those lines.

It seems odd to argue that appointments are bad because they might lead to the politicisation of the judiciary, when elections guarantee that. Even if a judge is elected because they've promised to be as objective and non-partisan as possible, then that is nothing more than a political position.

 

[luiz]

Voting for judges is an example of "too much democracy" IMO. Goes to show that the US is actually quite democratic, unlike its critics like to claim, but in this case that's a bad thing.

In a liberal democracy all powers must be restricted, including the power of the majority.

 

[Leoreth]

I'm already irritated by how much of the executive Americans can vote on.

 

[Silurian]

Why do people assume that if you do not elect judges they have to be appointed by politicians?

 

[Rashiminos]

Neither appointment nor election is particularly advantageous. I'll have chocolate ice cream instead.

 

[Pangur Bán]

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.

 

[kochman]

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.

That's one thing I was going to say...
The other being, if we voted on them, they'd campaign, show utter bias, etc... instead we at least get (the illusion of) impartiality in interpreting the law.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

That must be a problem peculiar to the US, because here most judicial appointments are certainly not political decisions, though they are carried out by the executive .

How can judges be apointed by the executive? Isnt there separation of powers there in Australia? In Spain judges are "appointed" by the consejo general del poder judicial (General Council of the Judiciary) which are 20 members elected by 5 years this way:

Twelve members who are active Judges and Magistrates, of which the Congress of Deputies names six and the Senate the other six in any case by a three fifths supermajority. This members are drafted out of a list of 36 judges and magistrates proposed by the professional associations of judges and magistrates, that represent al least two percent of the active judges and magistrates, and by independent judges that obtain at least the endorsement of at least two percent of the active judges and magistrates.

Eight Lawyers or other jurists with more than fifteen years of active service, four on proposal of the Congress of Deputies and another four on proposal of the Senate, in any case by a three fifths supermajority.

So like the executive power (government), members of the highest organ of the judiciary power are elected by the legislative power (which supposedly represents people´s will). I thought it was this way or something similar in most countries.

Anyway judges are judges not because somebody has elected or appointed them but becuase they have passed some exams to access the judiciary career (elaborated by the General Council of the Judiciary btw) .

 

[Cutlass]

Good lord no. Its an affront to good government.

This. Elected judges have every obligation to be biased in terms of their supporters, particularly donors. Appointed judges can be partisan, but usually are not unless the appointing officials put a great deal of work into making them so.

 

[BvBPL]

I am of the opinion that judges should appointed, not elected.

 

[warpus]

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.

I seem to agree with this response

 

[kramerfan86]

I wouldnt mind fellow specialists picking out judges and axing those who werent following the law properly, Im just not a big fan of it becoming a political favors game.

 

[duckstab]

I think they should be appointed, because judges ought to interpret the law based on logic and precedent, not public opinion.

But lifetime appointments should be abolished. It might have made sense in an era where the average life expectancy was like 42 years, but these days it's ridiculous. In my opinion it's this, more than anything else, which has made the appointment process so political. At the federal level, the leverage a party gets from happening to hold the Oval Office at a time when a judge retires or dies is just too big an opportunity for them to pass up - or for the opposing party to not dig their heels in.

Give judges a long enough term that they can be independent - say 10, 12, maybe 15 years at the outside. And let them retire with enough of a pension that they're not worried about their future employment. But nobody gets to spend a quarter century or more on the bench, it's just too much influence for one individual, however qualified.

 

[Glassfan]

That must be a problem peculiar to the US, because here most judicial appointments are certainly not political decisions, though they are carried out by the executive (there is something seriously wrong with an appointment system in which nominees to the judiciary are grilled on such hot button issues as you say, certainly, but that's a reflection on the US' peculiarities, not on the general concept of appointing vs. electing judges). On the other hand, judges who survive from election to election are always going to be political, by the very nature of their tenure. The entire basis of their authority becomes political when you are bringing elections into it. Judges become explicitly political figures. I don't think it is unreasonable at all to say that the politicizing of the judiciary in such a way creates an environment in which judges are essentially forced into adopting some sort of political identify, and operating along those lines.

It seems odd to argue that appointments are bad because they might lead to the politicization of the judiciary, when elections guarantee that. Even if a judge is elected because they've promised to be as objective and non-partisan as possible, then that is nothing more than a political position.

Here in the States, Democratic Governors (in many States) and Presidents nominate liberals to the Judiciary. Republican chief executives nominate conservatives. It is explicitly political. Big, national issues are decided by these courts, and are decided on the basis of political bias. Judicial activism occurs mostly at this level, by justices who are untouchable and uncorrectable due to their appointment-for life status.

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.

 

[Takhisis]

So you're screwed either way.

 

[Glassfan]

So you're screwed either way.

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.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

So you're screwed either way.

That tends to be what happens in democracy, yes.

 

[kochman]

Here in the States, Democratic Governors (in many States) and Presidents nominate liberals to the Judiciary. Republican chief executives nominate conservatives. It is explicitly political. Big, national issues are decided by these courts, and are decided on the basis of political bias. Judicial activism occurs mostly at this level, by justices who are untouchable and uncorrectable due to their appointment-for life status.

They have to be confirmed by Congress though...
Checks... balances.

 

[warpus]

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.

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.

 

[Joecoolyo]

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.

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