There’s an interesting story in the New York Times today about a study of how campaign contributions affected judicial rulings in Louisiana. The study asserts that judges are biased toward their contributors.
I don’t know whether the study is accurate or not, but at the end, who cares.
Judges shouldn’t be in the position to take contributions in the first place. They shouldn’t be elected.
Elected judges just invites problems. Judges should have one master: the law. Judges cannot and should not be accountable to voters. Making them so fairly raises the question of their motives and bias in their rulings. Did they hand down an extra long sentence so they could include in their re-election mail? Uphold a dicey product liability verdict because they were afraid of a backlash from voters sympathetic to the plaintiffs?
Justice can’t be for sale. And it shouldn’t subject to the whims of politics. That’s why federal judges are appointed for life. States and localities ought to adopt a similar approach.
Related Posts
» Stop Politicizing the Judiciary
» It’s Time for Congress to Fix Judicial Pay
» Romney Interview
» Trent Lott Elected GOP Whip
» Giuliani on Judges
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
January 29, 2008 - 5:00 pm
I could disagree more, but that would be pretty difficult. Judicial elections are the most transparent and accountable process through which judges are put on the bench. They make claims about their philosophy, are chosen, and are responsible for that. It’s by no means perfect, but surpasses the alternatives in spades.
Nomination hearings? A farce that doesn’t engender anything but vague references and code words when it comes to a judge’s perspective on the nature of law. Unappointed commissions run by the trial bar presenting “approved” candidates for an executive to choose from? I hope the silliness (and danger) of that approach is apparent.
I get the shady feeling that judicial elections can bring (it’s the hang ‘em high judge handing out sentences in order to soundbite his campaign opponent to death) - and we ought to work to mitigate that, but putting more layers between the people governed and the judges ruling is a mistake.
January 31, 2008 - 12:28 am
I’m with Krempasky… Good judges have the law as their master. But bad judges don’t limit themselves. Consider NY Judge Weinstien who seems to catch all the gun cases and doesn’t seem to care about the law and will find any reason to rule for the opposition. Consider the Utah judge that spewed her opposition to hunting and had a visitor chased down and arrested for leaving in a huff. Consider the California Supreme court justice Rose Bird and her cronies who found _any_ excuse whatsoever to overturn death penalty cases. The years leading up to their ouster, Rose and her two buddies overturned 51 of 54 cases. By then CA voters had enough and sent them packing in 1986.
We The People need a reset on the government. It’s not often exercised, but once in a while, in extreme cases, they need reminding who works for who.
I don’t think they should be able to solicit funds and certainly shouldn’t be selling their rulings.