Protecting judges from policiticians & the people

  • metta

    Posts: 39079

    Dec 19, 2010 7:32 AM GMT
    This is just so wrong. Judges voted to protect the rights of a minority and 3 are voted out and the others they are trying to impeach for doing so. Shouldn't our system protect judges from that.


    Lawmakers to try to impeach four justices

    http://www.globegazette.com/news/local/article_f5f95010-0a78-11e0-9476-001cc4c03286.html
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Dec 19, 2010 2:54 PM GMT
    Yes, and no. I could see it both ways. In this particular case it is advantageous to me (us) to protect the judges. However, on something like the Citizens United ruling it would have been nice- and there would have been support- to vote out parts of the Supreme Court based on that decision.
  • rdberg1957

    Posts: 661

    Dec 19, 2010 3:44 PM GMT
    Voting on judges may be "democratic," but it is bad news. The judiciary is the branch of government our constitution most seeks to insulate from popular opinion. If I don't want my basic rights subject to popular opinion, then I don't want judges to be elected. In most states, very few people vote for judges. A very small minority of the electorate can run a judge out of office because they don't like this or that opinion the judge rendered. A totally unqualified candidate can be elected if a small group of voters band together. If judges are selected by governors and presidents, subject to the will of the Senate, they are insulated a great deal from popular opinion. The price for that is that many people will be offended by decisions from the bench, but we will tolerate them so that our rights will not be subject to popular will.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2010 4:16 PM GMT
    We don't vote for judge in France.
    Lately it seems to be annoying a lot our government to have so little control over judicial system, and they more and more try to reduce the separation of power, both out of law making and public declaration.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2010 6:25 PM GMT
    Apparently there are 39 states that elect judges in some form.

    There seems to be only 1 country in the developed world that elects judges (the US).

    Very bad idea, if you ask me.
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Dec 19, 2010 6:39 PM GMT
    Obviously, only the federal government through the US Constitution and the remaining 11 states set up a more or less insulated judiciary as the 3rd branch of federal or state government. The states aren't compelled to follow suit; "states rights" and all that.

    It does seem not such a good system IMO for the populace in states to vote "approval" of justices ruling based on law. Same for the referendum system which can set up discriminatory laws in some states (like California's Prop icon_cool.gif, only to later be struck down by state or federal judges as unconstitutional based narrowly on the state constitution or more broadly to affect the country if found to violate the federal constitution's protections)

    The effort in Iowa is ludicrous and evil -- consider this was ONE decision among how many others these judges made that hadn't ruffled feathers and fed the hordes to have revenge.

    I agree -- appointees are a better way, and maybe also term limits of sufficient length to not have "lifelong" appointments just in case....icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2010 7:00 PM GMT
    I do not understand the logic behind electing a judge.
    The law requires study and is a learned approach to thinking (that sometimes is counterintuitive) One does not elect doctors or scientists. It shows an astonishing lack of respect for the years of training required to become learned in the Law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2010 7:18 PM GMT
    @UpperCanadian

    Maybe because there's no such thing as objectivity in law? I.e. it's always adversarial. There's no partial credit. You say constitutional, I say partisan.
    I think Solomon should have proceeded with chopping the baby in half.
    Whereas, you can't say the same for science and medicine. Unless you politicize them, of course, viz. global warming.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Dec 19, 2010 8:31 PM GMT
    On the whole, it's better to have judges appointed instead of elected.
    Their job is to interpret the existing laws. And, most of them do a very good job of it.
    And, their job is to protect the equal rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
    The tyrannical majority having the right to vote the judges out of office because the majority disagrees with one of the judges' rulings, circumvents the judges' duty to protect the minorities.
    Even when the judges make stupid decisions, they almost always, eventually, get it right.
  • Mepark

    Posts: 806

    Dec 19, 2010 8:34 PM GMT
    metta8 saidThis is just so wrong. Judges voted to protect the rights of a minority and 3 are voted out and the others they are trying to impeach for doing so. Shouldn't our system protect judges from that.


    Lawmakers to try to impeach four justices

    http://www.globegazette.com/news/local/article_f5f95010-0a78-11e0-9476-001cc4c03286.html


    Would you say the same if those judges had voted against equality?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2010 8:35 PM GMT
    Webster666 said
    Even when the judges make stupid decisions, they almost always, eventually, get it right.


    You mean like this?icon_twisted.gif
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/19roberts.html
    19roberts-graphicA-popup.jpg
    19roberts-graphicB-popup-v2.jpg
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Dec 19, 2010 10:31 PM GMT
    Tazo995 saidThere seems to be only 1 country in the developed world that elects judges (the US).

    wikipedian_protester.png