|
The California Supreme Court that had ruled that is was against the State Constitution NOT to leave gays marry each other was and is made up of elected Supreme Court Justices. Thus even elected Justices and Judges can go against popular opinion (Popular opinion as shown in the result of the Referendum overturning that decision).
The issue is NOT HOW Judges and Justices are picked, but the pool of candidates those Judges and Justices are pulled from. Elected Judges and Justices must face the people and explain to the people why they should be a Judge or a justice. Appointed Judges and Justices just have to convince whoever is appointing them that they are the right person for the job (and this includes the movement for "Merit" selection, for someone has to make the decision which attorney has the "Merits" to be a judge, what is "merit" is up to the board who makes that decision, and thus who makes up the merit selection board ends up deciding who has "merit". In effect all you are doing is removing Voters from the decision-making and appointing "Experts" to make that decision, "Experts" appointed by Political people who are worried about election themselves. Thus they will make sure the Board of Experts (Sounds like Iran and how it decides who can run for election and who will be the "Supreme Leader" of Iran) is filled with people who think like they do, and make selections that the people who appoint the Board of Experts want.
I am sorry; we need people involved in the selection process. Yes, most times people do not know who they are voting for in such judicial elections, but many people depend on people they trust. You can get liberal or conservative Judges and Justices when the people vote, you do NOT get that variation in the appointing system (To Liberal or to Conservative means you stood for something in the past and some people may hate you for it, thus never appointed and is another lesson to the people who are appointed, do not make waves, avoid the unpopular decision).
Just pointing out that while election of Judges can be bad, the alternatives can be worse. I would prefer a system like they have in Civil Law Countries, you are appointed to something like the Justice of the Peace, and if you are good at that job, you are appointed to be a local Judge, then an appellant judge and then a Supreme Court Justice. Each step provides how you would do the next step. Popular elections restricted to people holding the next position down in the legal system could be how people move up. We can include Public Defenders and District Attorneys along with Justices of the Peace as being among the people able to move up. I like to have a wide pool, but not to wide and then lets look at what the person has done, not what he claim he will do.
I remember about 20 years ago an attorney was running for Judge in Allegheny County Pennsylvania (the Allegheny County Home Seat is the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). His ads were effective, it had him saying he knew what was required of a Judge and then shown him slamming a jail cell door closed and you heard that unique metal on metal sound, made popular in the Movies. He won election, even through his previous Legal Career had been nothing but Corporate Law and after his election he did nothing but Family law.
Another case was the Allegheny County Controller had been a throne in other local politicians ass for decades, but Tom Flaherty had also protected a lot of people without politician connections through out his career. In his late 60s, he decided it was time to retire, so he ran for judge. The African Americans in the County all knew him and liked him and voted for him (as they had in his various campaign to be Controller and other offices in the County). Thus at age 69 he became a Judge, in a State with a mandatory retirement age of 70 for Judges. Yes, he was a Judge for less then one year, but as a "Senior Judge", when he turned 70 was entitled to a judges full Salary. People did not like it, but the voters thought he desired it.
While the above is an example of an Elected A Judge winning NOT on his record (or in the case of Tom Flaherty winning on his NON-Legal record), there are even more such cases when it comes to appointed Judges. Remember the Federal Judge in Washington DC, that ordered a two year old child to the two year old's father, even through the Father had previously been convicted of sexual child abuse of another child and denied visitation with that child in Maryland? Why? The Father was related to a Senator and the appointed Judge could not bring himself to believe that a relative of a Senator could do such acts. When the Mother refused to turn over the Child, the Judge Jailed the Mother on Contempt (Even the Senator was shocked when the case came out, voting to pass an act restricting how long a Judge could keep someone in Jail on a Contempt Charge, thus ending the imprisonment of the Mother). A later New Zealand Court reviewing the evidence (New Zealand is where the Mother had moved her child to) after reviewing the medical record also forbade the Father from having any visitation with the child.
Just pointing out appointed Judges have also been bad judges, and sometime worse then elected Judges (Look at the US Supreme Court, all appointed Judges). The issue is Not election or Appointment but WHO is elected or appointed and why. Direct Election of Judges can be good and can be bad, as can appointment of Judges. The issue is deciding WHO is to be a Judge NOT how, and How requires knowing the Judge and what he had done before being selected as a Judge. Leaving it up to the people, but restricting who can be selected reduces the influence of money whether you use election or appointment. The problem has been people using money to "buy" election by massive advertising Campaigns, not by people picking a Judge on the record of that judge.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
