Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does electing judges turn them into politicians? Will they "owe" certain people or groups? Do good judges lose their jobs because they don't run good re-election campaigns?
Usually, when someone applies for a job, their resume is looked at by someone knowledgeable in the field. Then they are interviewed by a person or group of people who know just what they are looking for and what questions to ask. Their qualifications are studied by someone who has access to plenty of information. Previous employers can be contacted.
Yesterday I voted for judges I've never met. I did not interview them or contact their previous employers. I do not know, other than from their own statements and statements of their opponents, anything about their past job performance. In most cases, though, I knew their political party - although I'd prefer not to and don't think it should be public.
I have always disagreed with electing judges and I personally never vote for judicial races. I feel it does reduce them to the level of politicians (used car salesmen) and removes some of that veil of impartiality that I would expect from a judge.
You are always able to look at the outcome of past decisions they have made. I think people have a right to vote for judges. If they are giving child molesters probation...it's time to move on. It shouldn't be partisan. It should be based on their record. And if you see that they are repaying favors...get rid of them.
I am an attorney and first of all I want to thank you for posting an intelligent topic here. This is far better than alot of the junk I routinely see. A good topic deserves a good response and I will try.
In an ideal world, judges should not be elected. The concept of the judiciary is that you want wise men and women who make decisions based on law and facts. You don't want someone simply making decisions based on what the "will of the majority" is. That's why the Founding Fathers created a Bill of Rights. They were concerned what would result if every issue in life were resolved by resorting to a majority vote. Nor, do you want judges who are cowardly or timid because they fear that doing "the right thing" or the "unpopular thing" will result in their being thrown out of office. Judicial independence is a firm principal established in Article III of the US Constitution which states that "judges shall serve for life during good behavior". This only applies to federal judges though.
Unfortunately, the world is often not ideal. I have unfortunately concluded that some mechanism must be in place for removing some judges. Such a mechanism should not be easy to use. Nor, should it be used very frequently. The biggest problem I have found with judges are not problems of ideology though. They are much more simple problems. You get judges who are lazy and will not work and tie up cases for months. You get other judges who are rude and insulting to both attorneys and litigants in court and simply should not be allowed to remain as judges for that reason. Some judges behave in an extremely partial way towards one side or another during court proceedings. Finally, some judges simply lack the intellect to decide complicated cases and should not be doing so.
In my ideal world, lawyers would have some say over who remains a judge and who does not. I think lawyers should have more control over this than the general public simply because we appear in front of judges more often and we have the skills and acumen to determine who is an effective judge and who shouldn't be on the bench. I think every five years, the names of all the judges in a district should be submitted to the lawyers in that district. Any judge who receives less than a 60% approval rating from lawyers should either be removed from office or should have to sit for extraordinary election. JMHO
The idea of voting for judges seems very strange to me and the US is the only country I know of which does it. Justice is such a sensitive issue that being up for election must surely sway the judges to give harsher punishments to play to the vindictive side of people who don't have any legal expertise and so jeopardise impartiality. None of my business to tell you how to run America but if I was setting up my own country I'd have judges appointed from within same as in the military. As far as I am concerned administering of justice is best left to the experts and politics should not play any part in it.
There are a lot of good arguments for not electing judges. On the other hand, who's to say that if it was the other way around, the official responsible for appointing judges wouldn't be accused of having an agenda? Just look at the Supreme Court; a President's appointments there can affect the entire country for decades!
I think that when you get right down to it, you can find negative things to say about either system--but at least when we vote for judges, we have a say in the process.
I prefer that judges be appointed by the Legislature on recommendation from the Justice Department and serve for life barring any criminal actions. For that there should be an impeachment process. Removing judges by buying a campaign because the judges were offensive to a small but well funded political group (I obviously speak of the anti same sex marriage people) is an abomination and a threat to Justice and the Republic.
Several years ago a judge in Los Angeles lost her job in an election. She was well-respected by all. No one had anything bad to say about her, before, during, or after the campaign. Why did she lose? She didn't campaign, and she had an unusual, "foreign-sounding" name. People usually don't know anything about any of the candidates, so they look at the names and pick one. I read the information sent to me ("I will be hardworking and fair") and look on the internet, but that's about all I can do.
I agree with Mark that those who work with the judges should have more say than the general public. As he said, they know who gets work done and who slows things down. They also know who falls asleep while court is in session. (I saw that while on jury duty.)
I won't vote for judges either, the information is too vague and often taken out of context.
IMO judges should be "hired" just like any other profession and should be reviewed just as employees are and if necessary, fired. I don't understand how you can be partisan and administer justice.
Sounds simplistic, I know.
I think they should be appointed, however i think there should be impeachment processes for all judges.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
