5 ms·

Citizens should be able to nominate & disbar judges.

fleitz 12y ago
Ugh. No. The judicial branch is not a political one, as the Supreme Court wisely declared the other day it is not up to them to question the will of the people. If the people elect a congress that passes dumb laws (including those in the constitutions) it is not for the judges to overrule them. If you can't get the people to elect a congress to make suitable laws, how is electing judges going to help? I don't disagree that this ruling will hurt US businesses, it's just that that is a political question, and not a judicial one.
- ChrisAntaki 12y ago
  The power to elect Senators and Representatives empowers the public to make their government reflect their will. The more positions are electable, the more accurately the will of the public can be reflected.
  - fleitz 12y ago
    It's almost as if the US uses juries for exactly this purpose.
    - ChrisAntaki 12y ago
      Correct, that is one example of how the public takes part in decision making in America.
  - penrod 12y ago
    The more positions are elected, the more power the majority have to impose upon minorities. It is well known that pure democracy does not invariably promote liberal society, which is why the Founders of the US Constitution specifically rejected majoritarianism.
    - ChrisAntaki 12y ago
      Merriam Webster defines `pure democracy` as "democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives". As you can see, electing representatives is not the same as pure democracy.
    - ameister14 12y ago
      That's not accurate. The 'tyranny of the majority' issue is not really one that concerned the founders of the U.S. as much as people think, particularly not while they were drafting the Constitution. They were more worried that if you give everyone the right to vote, they would rationally vote in their own best interests in the short term, choosing to seize all property held by the landowners. I also don't know that it's all that "well known that pure democracy does not invariably promote liberal society." There weren't then and aren't now many examples of pure democracy. Hell, at the time there weren't all that many examples of Republics.
    - Natsu 12y ago
      And yet we call systems that are ruled by very small minorities "dictatorships" so it's not something you can optimize in one direction, as it's one thing to protect minorities and something else for minorities to order everyone else around. I have not seen any clear indication that the Founders collectively had anything against majorities per se, though, or even that they were trying to promote a liberal society (at least for any modern meaning of that word), as they simply required super-majority rules for more fundamental changes (e.g. changes to the Constitution) and seem to me more concerned that a minority of people in power could not do everything on their own, though I think there was some debate on that between the Federalists and those opposed to them.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    Living most of my life in a state where all judges are elected, it's been clear to me since childhood that it's stupid. Judges are not supposed to reflect the public will. They are supposed to reflect the law.
- xordon 12y ago
  Many judges are elected in the US. Not only retention elections but partisan elections as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election http://judgepedia.org/Partisan_election_of_judges http://judgepedia.org/Partisan_election_of_judges
  - ChrisAntaki 12y ago
    Thanks for the links
Natsu 12y ago
Actually, you can vote to recall some judges. It almost never happens, though. Every election in Arizona, we have a giant name dump and are asked if we want to remove that person as a judge. EDIT: To clarify, please note that this does not apply to Article III judges who serve "during good behavior" and have some constitutional safeguards, like not having their pay reduced - http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/page/183 http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/page/183 EDIT 2: This particular judge has had several interesting cases - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_A._Preska http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_A._Preska
- ChrisAntaki 12y ago
  Interesting, thanks for posting these links
nness 12y ago
In some courts in the US this does occur, and is generally considered by other countries to be a bad idea. As judges tend to get chosen by by their stance on certain issues, which means that different jurisdictions have different political and social leanings. You can decide cases just be getting it in-front of the right judge in the right jurisdiction. It undermines the effectiveness and impartialness of the law.

Ugh. No. The judicial branch is not a political one, as the Supreme Court wisely declared the other day it is not up to them to question the will of the people. If the people elect a congress that passes dumb laws (including those in the constitutions) it is not for the judges to overrule them. If you can't get the people to elect a congress to make suitable laws, how is electing judges going to help? I don't disagree that this ruling will hurt US businesses, it's just that that is a political question, and not a judicial one.

ChrisAntaki 12y ago
The power to elect Senators and Representatives empowers the public to make their government reflect their will. The more positions are electable, the more accurately the will of the public can be reflected.
- fleitz 12y ago
  It's almost as if the US uses juries for exactly this purpose.
  - ChrisAntaki 12y ago
    Correct, that is one example of how the public takes part in decision making in America.
- penrod 12y ago
  The more positions are elected, the more power the majority have to impose upon minorities. It is well known that pure democracy does not invariably promote liberal society, which is why the Founders of the US Constitution specifically rejected majoritarianism.
  - ChrisAntaki 12y ago
    Merriam Webster defines `pure democracy` as "democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives". As you can see, electing representatives is not the same as pure democracy.
  - ameister14 12y ago
    That's not accurate. The 'tyranny of the majority' issue is not really one that concerned the founders of the U.S. as much as people think, particularly not while they were drafting the Constitution. They were more worried that if you give everyone the right to vote, they would rationally vote in their own best interests in the short term, choosing to seize all property held by the landowners. I also don't know that it's all that "well known that pure democracy does not invariably promote liberal society." There weren't then and aren't now many examples of pure democracy. Hell, at the time there weren't all that many examples of Republics.
  - Natsu 12y ago
    And yet we call systems that are ruled by very small minorities "dictatorships" so it's not something you can optimize in one direction, as it's one thing to protect minorities and something else for minorities to order everyone else around. I have not seen any clear indication that the Founders collectively had anything against majorities per se, though, or even that they were trying to promote a liberal society (at least for any modern meaning of that word), as they simply required super-majority rules for more fundamental changes (e.g. changes to the Constitution) and seem to me more concerned that a minority of people in power could not do everything on their own, though I think there was some debate on that between the Federalists and those opposed to them.
- nknighthb 12y ago
  Living most of my life in a state where all judges are elected, it's been clear to me since childhood that it's stupid. Judges are not supposed to reflect the public will. They are supposed to reflect the law.
xordon 12y ago
Many judges are elected in the US. Not only retention elections but partisan elections as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_election http://judgepedia.org/Partisan_election_of_judges http://judgepedia.org/Partisan_election_of_judges
- ChrisAntaki 12y ago
  Thanks for the links

Natsu 12y ago

Actually, you can vote to recall some judges. It almost never happens, though. Every election in Arizona, we have a giant name dump and are asked if we want to remove that person as a judge. EDIT: To clarify, please note that this does not apply to Article III judges who serve "during good behavior" and have some constitutional safeguards, like not having their pay reduced - http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/page/183 http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/page/183 EDIT 2: This particular judge has had several interesting cases - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_A._Preska http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_A._Preska

ChrisAntaki 12y ago
Interesting, thanks for posting these links

nness 12y ago

In some courts in the US this does occur, and is generally considered by other countries to be a bad idea. As judges tend to get chosen by by their stance on certain issues, which means that different jurisdictions have different political and social leanings. You can decide cases just be getting it in-front of the right judge in the right jurisdiction. It undermines the effectiveness and impartialness of the law.