Should we vote for judges?

[Evie]

Oh, they're usually known on the basis of which government appointed them.

But they're not especially relevant. Judges are judges first, and they (wisely) stay out of politicking.

 

[Core Imposter]

One of the ways we can return America to a firmer moral standing is to designate the power to appoint judges to the churches. I support that.

I also advocate the elimination of fair sentencing laws and systemic sentencing guidelines so that judges can judge.

We should also amend the constitution to repudiate the scope of Federal courts and return to state courts the power to adjudicate as was the original intent of the founders.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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.

Supreme Court justices being one of the few judges we don't vote for.

So much for the superiority of Westminster types at keeping politics out of the courtroom.

 

[AlpsStranger]

One of the ways we can return America to a firmer moral standing is to designate the power to appoint judges to the churches. I support that.

You can't be serious.

Explain the process to me.

Does a Unitarian Universalist church count?

I'm still trying to figure out why that isn't the craziest, most whacked out bit of right wing ass hattery I've ever read in my life.

 

[Ayatollah So]

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

That point seems logical, but then:

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.

THAT system was composed entirely of old white males, too, at some time.

 

[Cutlass]

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.

It's a court that many people do everything in their power to turn into a political body.

 

[Core Imposter]

Given the stellar results we have gotten by voting for Congressmen I'd suggest our odds might be better if we chose judges by lottery.

 

[kochman]

Given the stellar results we have gotten by voting for Congressmen I'd suggest our odds might be better if we chose judges by lottery.

No one would buy the lottery tickets

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No one would buy the lottery tickets

A lottery, not The Lottery. He means that they should be chosen at random from the populace.

 

[Camikaze]

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.

In terms of the legal separation of powers, yes, but there's a difference between that and material power as you say, which was my main point. Judges' salaries are paid for by the executive, and their decisions are carried out by the executive. So judges literally derive their material power from the executive.

Parliamentary sovereignty might disagree with you on the legal separation of powers, even, though.

THAT system was composed entirely of old white males, too, at some time.

Indeed, which is why it took hundreds of years of the development of the system before essentially anyone other than old white men became judges. But as political systems became (or as I should say, become) more representative of the community as a whole, the judges that that system appoint have become (or are becoming) similarly more representative of the community they hold jurisdiction over, perhaps merely as a matter of political necessity (if a government simply made a rule of appointing old white men, it wouldn't go down too well with the electorate). That's one area where political appointments might be a good thing; they're far better at promoting fair representation.

 

[Core Imposter]

I too advocate for fair representation in selecting judges. In a country as rich as America everyone should have a judge in their pocket. And a fair number of them ought to be ugly. And we need some skinny ones in there. Ain't many skinny judges if you'll take a peek. Not fair and certainly not representative of the population....oh wait.......maybe we got fat and ugly enough out there I dunno.

 

[JollyRoger]

While the appointment process has its flaws, I think voting for judges is even more flawed. In Dallas County right now, you have to run as a Democrat to win a judgeship. In the past couple of decaes, we have had almost the whole bench turn over relatively quickly as the county went from Democrat to Republican back to Democrat again.

In the suburban counties, you have to be a Republican to win. Even then, there can be huge problems. Collin County has two factions, one of which plays very aggressively. They have gotten not only one judge that wasn't Republican enough convicted of election "crimes", they have also gotten the District Clerk (also and elected office) convicted and removed. So basically, you can overturn an election with 12 jury votes, just so long as you win the District Attorney race and are patient enough to call multiuple grand juries to get an indictment I believe they went through 7 grand juries before they indicted the judge.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Meh, skinny doesn't always mean pretty. Exhibit A:

Spoiler :

 

[JollyRoger]

Appointed Justices usually serve for life, so you're stuck with them even as society changes, and they get old and senile (RBG).

Do you have any evidence that she is senile? Her written opinions and questions from the bench seem pretty lucid to me.

 

[zstep14]

There's such thing as "tyranny" of the majority, in which a majority group oppresses individuals who represent a minority. This is what the Supreme Court can prevent. It would be a horrible idea if Supreme Court justices were to be elected by the populace rather than appointed for life.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I would prefer a system where no judges run for election to get the job, but any judge could be removed from office by ballot initiative.

Edit: I forgot to mention that I also believe that ballots needs to include a lot more information to help a voter make a decision without having to rely on media coverage or partisan affiliation. When multiple candidates are running, each should submit a one page essay explaining his or her platform and qualifications for the job. In recall elections, those petitioning to remove someone from office should include a list of grievances, and the office holder should submit a response defending himself on each of these accounts. These essays should all be submitted with affidavits,so false statements constitute the crime of perjury. They should be released to be public at least 2 weeks before the election, and made available for to every voter to review in the ballot booth.

 

[Evie]

And again: any system where judge have to fear losing their job if their ruling don't please their political masters (even if these political masters are the population) is a flawed and biased system that favor lynch mentality (eg, ruling to please the popular opinion) over reasoned analysis of the facts.

In effect, you would be handing over the power to decide high-profile legal cases to the medias, since the media presentation of the case pretty much determine popular opinion (As media presentation is the only way they,ll learn any facts related to teh case), and the popular opinion can get a judge fired.

A judge should make his ruling based on the law, interpretation of the law, the facts, and interpretation of facts. Not based on what the half-informed or uninformed public think based on what sensationalist medias tell them.