Skip to main content

View Diary: Brace yourselves: we have a war on our hands... (345 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Whoever thought up the God-forsaken idea (18+ / 0-)

    of voting for judges had to have been a brain-dead idiot (and populist, no doubt) of the lowest order. How on earth did that schmuck think we'd maintain an impartial judiciary when the judges are looking over their shoulder to make sure their decisions are OK with voters?

    A top priority should be getting this entire process reformed. Judges should not be up for election ever. I refused to vote to approve any judge's term today purely on the principle that it shouldn't be on my ballot.

    Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice. -- Clark's Law

    by unspeakable on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:46:04 PM PDT

    •  This is one of the issues that came up in (11+ / 0-)

      O'Connor's discussion, for exactly these reasons: the more the judiciary is at risk of influence of moneyed interests, the less impartial it can be.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:48:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think that's construcitve. I diaried (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pico

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      the IA retention vote yesterday, but the suggestion of reforming the system to remove voter input, I think, is misguided.  First, there's no reason to lose a vote like that.  Second, IA judge selection is actually MORE removed from politics than most states, arguably more than federal appointments.

      Bottom line, howeever, is the fact that judicial decisions are never the final, final word.  There's always a vote, even if just for an amendment to constitution, like with Prop 8.  Electoral malpractice will scuttle anything.

      Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

      by Inland on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:24:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Appointment and election both have problems. (0+ / 0-)

        The NYS system has been surprisingly good; judges must be elected to lower positions, and must be appointed from them to higher positions... and there's also an election of their peers (fellow judges) too.  I tend to think that judges who can manage to be both elected and appointed rarely fall into the usual traps which elected judges fall into (crass populism, being bought by crass populists) and those appointed judges fall into (being sellouts owned by powerful men).  It is possible, but the kind of bad behavior you tend to need to perform to get appointed tends to prevent you from getting elected.  And vice versa.

        -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

        by neroden on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:41:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site