5 ms·

Explain to me how being appointed by someone makes you any less bias them being elected. Most states have non-partisan elections for Judges, only 18 allow then

by wil421 7y ago

Explain to me how being appointed by someone makes you any less bias them being elected. Most states have non-partisan elections for Judges, only 18 allow then to run with a political party. Federal Judges are appointed and about 90% of state judges are elected. There have only been 2 Federal judges that have been impeached since 1989.

chrisseaton 7y ago
> Explain to me how being appointed by someone makes you any less bias them being elected. Because you generally don't need to be re-appointed. You generally do need to be re-elected. In order to be re-elected you need to please the electorate, rather than do the 'right thing' (whatever that is.) This can create a conflict of interest, such as judges prioritising 'being tough on crime' over the facts of cases.
- wil421 7y ago
  The Supreme Court justices are all appointed. It’s a huge deal politically because the current president will pick someone from their party. They generally vote in line with their party. I completely understand your point. One thing I will ad is with elections you can change your mind over time. With an appointee you are stuck with their views for an unknown amount of time usually until they retire or die.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > someone from their party That seems like basically an extension of election then, as you're electing someone who then appoints someone from their party. Judges in the UK (source of this article) are never part of a party - they're politically neutral. Judges in the Supreme Court aren't even allowed to vote in normal elections themeselves (they're lords.)
    - tialaramex 7y ago
      Although a modern day Supreme Court judge is automatically referred to as Lord/ Lady, the peerage that would otherwise grant that title and forbids them from voting is not automatic. The Supreme Court are no longer Lords in fact as they were when they had the title "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary" and worked across the road in the House of Lords. All current Supreme Court justices have a peerage, but in principle a disapproving Government could just tell Liz not to give them a peerage and they wouldn't get one. Whereas all the elected Government can do about a choice of new Justice itself is say "No" and ask the committee to pick again, the committee isn't obliged to do anything except pick the same person again - which would be a very pointed rebuke. So far of course no government has done that but the UK Supreme Court is young and these are interesting times.
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        > All current Supreme Court justices have a peerage Right, that's what I meant, they are all in practice peers. > a disapproving Government could just tell Liz not to give them a peerage and they wouldn't get one I think they can only advise the Crown, not tell her what to do.
        tialaramex 7y ago
        In principle Liz may be able to give the title away without following advice. But that's the part Supreme Court judges get anyway. The main thing you get when personally ennobled is you get to be in the House of Lords, and Parliament (which includes the House of Lords) decided it gets to choose how that works for itself, it changed the rules last century to stop giving out peerages that survive and can be inherited. Now (other than titles like "Prince of Wales" for royalty that don't come with the ability to sit in Parliament) all new peerages extinguish upon death. At the time the question was asked: Can Liz just make new peerages anyway? And the answer was that Liz can say "This person is a Duke now" and lo, now they're named Duke So-and-such, but whereas a Duke created by the normal process would get to sit in the Lords (and thus is in Parliament) this Duke would not get to do that. Since Britain doesn't have any rules forbidding you from taking any name you please (so long as you don't use it to defraud people), this power is useless. You can already name yourself Duke So-and-such without Liz's help.
  - dangerface 7y ago
    > With an appointee you are stuck with their views for an unknown amount of time If their views impact their judgement it will be overruled and they can be disbarred. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/15/constance-briscoe-disbarred-after-being-jailed-for-lying https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/15/constance-br...
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Appointees have to win their place by an established career of honest and forthright legal practice. Your question is like asking is it better to appoint rocket scientist from a pool of professors of rocket science, via a skill based appointment system, or via a popularity competition that the public vote on.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
tialaramex 7y ago
> Most states have non-partisan elections for Judges, only 18 allow then to run with a political party. So: In 18 US states, the courts are entirely captured by party politics, but in the other states there's at least thin pretence that this isn't the case? Hooray for US justice. /s Also when you say "Federal judges are appointed" you forgot to say "By politicians". Unsurprisingly the British system doesn't let politicians (who will be judged like anyone else) pick the judges, it has independent Commissions† for this purpose, just as it does for deciding electoral boundaries. And that's how the US went many months without a functioning Supreme Court, so that a political party could ensure their party preference overrode any other consideration, and today the Trump administration basically just dictates to its five tame Justices what the US Constitution "really" always meant which just coincidentally is whatever Trump wants it to mean today. Nice "justice" you've got there, hope your life is never on the line. † The JAC (which picks most judges including this one) is a mix of existing judges, independent lay people and non-judge lawyers or law experts. It was told to pick people on merit, but only those with "good character" and that it should try to reflect Britain's diversity (so e.g. not replace all the old white male judges with more old white male judges). It appears to work pretty well.

by wil421 7y ago

chrisseaton 7y ago

> Explain to me how being appointed by someone makes you any less bias them being elected. Because you generally don't need to be re-appointed. You generally do need to be re-elected. In order to be re-elected you need to please the electorate, rather than do the 'right thing' (whatever that is.) This can create a conflict of interest, such as judges prioritising 'being tough on crime' over the facts of cases.

wil421 7y ago
The Supreme Court justices are all appointed. It’s a huge deal politically because the current president will pick someone from their party. They generally vote in line with their party. I completely understand your point. One thing I will ad is with elections you can change your mind over time. With an appointee you are stuck with their views for an unknown amount of time usually until they retire or die.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > someone from their party That seems like basically an extension of election then, as you're electing someone who then appoints someone from their party. Judges in the UK (source of this article) are never part of a party - they're politically neutral. Judges in the Supreme Court aren't even allowed to vote in normal elections themeselves (they're lords.)
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    Although a modern day Supreme Court judge is automatically referred to as Lord/ Lady, the peerage that would otherwise grant that title and forbids them from voting is not automatic. The Supreme Court are no longer Lords in fact as they were when they had the title "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary" and worked across the road in the House of Lords. All current Supreme Court justices have a peerage, but in principle a disapproving Government could just tell Liz not to give them a peerage and they wouldn't get one. Whereas all the elected Government can do about a choice of new Justice itself is say "No" and ask the committee to pick again, the committee isn't obliged to do anything except pick the same person again - which would be a very pointed rebuke. So far of course no government has done that but the UK Supreme Court is young and these are interesting times.
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      > All current Supreme Court justices have a peerage Right, that's what I meant, they are all in practice peers. > a disapproving Government could just tell Liz not to give them a peerage and they wouldn't get one I think they can only advise the Crown, not tell her what to do.
      - tialaramex 7y ago
        In principle Liz may be able to give the title away without following advice. But that's the part Supreme Court judges get anyway. The main thing you get when personally ennobled is you get to be in the House of Lords, and Parliament (which includes the House of Lords) decided it gets to choose how that works for itself, it changed the rules last century to stop giving out peerages that survive and can be inherited. Now (other than titles like "Prince of Wales" for royalty that don't come with the ability to sit in Parliament) all new peerages extinguish upon death. At the time the question was asked: Can Liz just make new peerages anyway? And the answer was that Liz can say "This person is a Duke now" and lo, now they're named Duke So-and-such, but whereas a Duke created by the normal process would get to sit in the Lords (and thus is in Parliament) this Duke would not get to do that. Since Britain doesn't have any rules forbidding you from taking any name you please (so long as you don't use it to defraud people), this power is useless. You can already name yourself Duke So-and-such without Liz's help.
- dangerface 7y ago
  > With an appointee you are stuck with their views for an unknown amount of time If their views impact their judgement it will be overruled and they can be disbarred. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/15/constance-briscoe-disbarred-after-being-jailed-for-lying https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/15/constance-br...

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

Appointees have to win their place by an established career of honest and forthright legal practice. Your question is like asking is it better to appoint rocket scientist from a pool of professors of rocket science, via a skill based appointment system, or via a popularity competition that the public vote on.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

tialaramex 7y ago

> Most states have non-partisan elections for Judges, only 18 allow then to run with a political party. So: In 18 US states, the courts are entirely captured by party politics, but in the other states there's at least thin pretence that this isn't the case? Hooray for US justice. /s Also when you say "Federal judges are appointed" you forgot to say "By politicians". Unsurprisingly the British system doesn't let politicians (who will be judged like anyone else) pick the judges, it has independent Commissions† for this purpose, just as it does for deciding electoral boundaries. And that's how the US went many months without a functioning Supreme Court, so that a political party could ensure their party preference overrode any other consideration, and today the Trump administration basically just dictates to its five tame Justices what the US Constitution "really" always meant which just coincidentally is whatever Trump wants it to mean today. Nice "justice" you've got there, hope your life is never on the line. † The JAC (which picks most judges including this one) is a mix of existing judges, independent lay people and non-judge lawyers or law experts. It was told to pick people on merit, but only those with "good character" and that it should try to reflect Britain's diversity (so e.g. not replace all the old white male judges with more old white male judges). It appears to work pretty well.