4 ms·

The problem isn't that judges are elected This is definitely one of the problems. There was a study that showed judges were handing stricter sentences for the

The problem isn't that judges are elected This is definitely one of the problems. There was a study that showed judges were handing stricter sentences for the same crime during election years than non election years ("tough on crime"). Elections are a popularity contest in a way, even well informed voters do not always make rational decisions. If one doesn't have elections to worry about, he/she can do their job to the best of their ability without thinking about pleasing anyone or pandering to any one group, just good old honest work. The moment they have to think about elections, things change. What kind of judge would you like to have - someone who is totally honest and fair without giving a crap about what others think, or someone who is trying to be popular?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
salawat 6y ago
Yes, because unaccountable lifelong appointed judges works so well in other spheres, yes? Jefferson, Madison, at al feared the Judiciary for a reason. Particularly the Federal tier. Elected judges have a built in check in that they are subject to periodic reaffirmation of confidence from the populace. An appointed judge just needs the right connections once, and to not do anything on such a regular basis that they become the subject of an ethics investigation.
- justaguyhere 6y ago
  I never said appointed judges are a great idea, especially lifelong ones. I simply said electing judges is a bad idea. I don't know which one is worse. Maybe both are equally bad.
- jogjayr 6y ago
  What about appointed judges with a long term? 10 or 12 years - that's longer than legislators or executive branch people. It gives them more independence but also ensures a turnover of people and ideas. Do it on a rolling basis so that every 1 or 2 years a judge from the court has to step down.
  - salawat 6y ago
    Still somewhat leery of it, in particular with double the term length of a Senator. The longer in office, the more attractive a target for graft one becomes. I think Senators may be the upper limit I would be willing to see without reaffirmation. Then again, maybe you could make a longer term work with some sort of "anti-election" mechanism. You vote in/appoint/have judges nominated by the bar, whatever, and periodically, a dismissal election is held. If a certain threshold of votes for dismissal/no-confidence are cast, then that triggers a conventional election/run-off for that judges spot. In that sense, the judge no longer has to actively politik, though those vying for the spot are free to campaign to try to get people displeased enough to trigger an election. It still seems like it may only work with a populace who stays on top of their judges, but I actually kind of like the idea because in theory, good judges would never really be upset from business as usual, bad ones would very quickly become apparent in theory, since the number of corrupt supporters would be very unlikely to dwarf the number of "victims" of the judges corrupt acts, and you get away from some of the politicization of the position except when the public clearly has a change in the winds of policy in mind, in which case the election may put the judge back in office, but with renewed attention to the change in civil sentiment. I don't know, it just feels better to me that way. I mean I do kinda get where Go's coming from, and I semi-dig it. I just don't think judges should ever be more than arms length away from the people whose lives they impact most.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

salawat 6y ago

Yes, because unaccountable lifelong appointed judges works so well in other spheres, yes? Jefferson, Madison, at al feared the Judiciary for a reason. Particularly the Federal tier. Elected judges have a built in check in that they are subject to periodic reaffirmation of confidence from the populace. An appointed judge just needs the right connections once, and to not do anything on such a regular basis that they become the subject of an ethics investigation.

justaguyhere 6y ago
I never said appointed judges are a great idea, especially lifelong ones. I simply said electing judges is a bad idea. I don't know which one is worse. Maybe both are equally bad.
jogjayr 6y ago
What about appointed judges with a long term? 10 or 12 years - that's longer than legislators or executive branch people. It gives them more independence but also ensures a turnover of people and ideas. Do it on a rolling basis so that every 1 or 2 years a judge from the court has to step down.
- salawat 6y ago
  Still somewhat leery of it, in particular with double the term length of a Senator. The longer in office, the more attractive a target for graft one becomes. I think Senators may be the upper limit I would be willing to see without reaffirmation. Then again, maybe you could make a longer term work with some sort of "anti-election" mechanism. You vote in/appoint/have judges nominated by the bar, whatever, and periodically, a dismissal election is held. If a certain threshold of votes for dismissal/no-confidence are cast, then that triggers a conventional election/run-off for that judges spot. In that sense, the judge no longer has to actively politik, though those vying for the spot are free to campaign to try to get people displeased enough to trigger an election. It still seems like it may only work with a populace who stays on top of their judges, but I actually kind of like the idea because in theory, good judges would never really be upset from business as usual, bad ones would very quickly become apparent in theory, since the number of corrupt supporters would be very unlikely to dwarf the number of "victims" of the judges corrupt acts, and you get away from some of the politicization of the position except when the public clearly has a change in the winds of policy in mind, in which case the election may put the judge back in office, but with renewed attention to the change in civil sentiment. I don't know, it just feels better to me that way. I mean I do kinda get where Go's coming from, and I semi-dig it. I just don't think judges should ever be more than arms length away from the people whose lives they impact most.