Comments on: Judges Shouldn’t Be Elected

By: Danno

Danno — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:28:58 +0000

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.

By: Krempasky

Krempasky — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:00:00 +0000

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.