4 ms·

> Judges should be elected democratically. This doesn't feel like the right answer. Judges should feel free to make an unpopular judgement if it's what the la

> Judges should be elected democratically. This doesn't feel like the right answer. Judges should feel free to make an unpopular judgement if it's what the law dictates.

avmich 6y ago
Judges should be accountable, like everybody else. Impeachment mechanism should have real strength - it doesn't seem to have it now. Cases of impeaching judges for sufficiently erroneous rulings should be quite possible. This is an opinion.
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  Accountable to the law? Absolutely. That sort of removal could be done by a judicial council or some other construct of internal professionals - just as a lawyer can become disbarred. "Tough on Crime" is anathema to actual justice.
  - avmich 6y ago
    > Accountable to the law? Absolutely The country is the country of people, they establish all the mechanisms. Including law. The "country of people" legally is written in founding papers, but here we're questioning on the level of founding papers. Constitution offers a mechanism to change it as a whole; but there currently are other mechanisms too. Working judges impeachment should perhaps be practical - or it should be clear why not.
- munk-a 6y ago
  Impeachments of judges (up to and including the supreme court) is something that is probably possible, it seems to be covered by general laws around mid-term removal from office - it just hasn't been thoroughly exercised in the US since nobody wants the headache of trying to counter all the lawsuits associated with it.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Huh? What lawsuits? There is an impeachment trial and that's it.
brundolf 6y ago
It's possible to be democratically selected, and still have a life-term so you can be insulated from politics. The arbitrary way that the president can select all federal judges for the entire country (to my understanding) not only skews the judicial system, it adds a whole new dimension the the presidential election which really seems to distort what the job is actually intended to be. For example, it was the sole reason a lot of people voted for Trump: because at this moment in history there happened, through sheer chance, to be this hugely disproportionate opportunity for a party to grab power that will last a generation. Just because a bunch of people retired around the same time. And this momentous opportunity completely hinged on what would already be the most important single election in the land. That doesn't feel remotely like what the founding fathers intended.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  > through sheer chance It wasn't sheer chance. It was Senate Majority Leader Mitch Mcconnell subverting the Constitution with a coup, refusing to even let the Senate consider whether to approve Presidemt Obama's nominations. And now that Mcconnell has eliminated the principle of upholding the Constitution, we can expect the same from every Senate for at least a generation, and judges will only be appointed when the President and the Senate are the same party.

> Judges should be elected democratically. This doesn't feel like the right answer. Judges should feel free to make an unpopular judgement if it's what the law dictates.

avmich 6y ago

Judges should be accountable, like everybody else. Impeachment mechanism should have real strength - it doesn't seem to have it now. Cases of impeaching judges for sufficiently erroneous rulings should be quite possible. This is an opinion.

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
Accountable to the law? Absolutely. That sort of removal could be done by a judicial council or some other construct of internal professionals - just as a lawyer can become disbarred. "Tough on Crime" is anathema to actual justice.
- avmich 6y ago
  > Accountable to the law? Absolutely The country is the country of people, they establish all the mechanisms. Including law. The "country of people" legally is written in founding papers, but here we're questioning on the level of founding papers. Constitution offers a mechanism to change it as a whole; but there currently are other mechanisms too. Working judges impeachment should perhaps be practical - or it should be clear why not.
munk-a 6y ago
Impeachments of judges (up to and including the supreme court) is something that is probably possible, it seems to be covered by general laws around mid-term removal from office - it just hasn't been thoroughly exercised in the US since nobody wants the headache of trying to counter all the lawsuits associated with it.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Huh? What lawsuits? There is an impeachment trial and that's it.

brundolf 6y ago

It's possible to be democratically selected, and still have a life-term so you can be insulated from politics. The arbitrary way that the president can select all federal judges for the entire country (to my understanding) not only skews the judicial system, it adds a whole new dimension the the presidential election which really seems to distort what the job is actually intended to be. For example, it was the sole reason a lot of people voted for Trump: because at this moment in history there happened, through sheer chance, to be this hugely disproportionate opportunity for a party to grab power that will last a generation. Just because a bunch of people retired around the same time. And this momentous opportunity completely hinged on what would already be the most important single election in the land. That doesn't feel remotely like what the founding fathers intended.

srtjstjsj 6y ago
> through sheer chance It wasn't sheer chance. It was Senate Majority Leader Mitch Mcconnell subverting the Constitution with a coup, refusing to even let the Senate consider whether to approve Presidemt Obama's nominations. And now that Mcconnell has eliminated the principle of upholding the Constitution, we can expect the same from every Senate for at least a generation, and judges will only be appointed when the President and the Senate are the same party.