- Joined
- Jul 27, 2010
- Messages
- 37,412
- Reaction score
- 13,542
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
I have a solution to the tit for tat mentality that our legislators have when appointing judges. Take that ability away from them.
In our justice system every defendent can be judged by their peers. aka Jury. If this is good enough to convict someone for rape and murder where they can get the death penalty then it should be good enough to nominate judges to the Supreme Courts. And with today's technology it would be a simple matter to make it a jury pooled nationally so as to attempt to avoid partisanship.
1: Randomly select jury pool. (to make sure they have at least some intelligence we could make the selection process based off of high school diplomas instead of drivers license like most places) 1 jury panel per judge.
2: Those that were selected must report to a specific local to deliberate with the rest of the selected Jury members. All of their expenses will be paid for while they are deliberating, transportation shall be provided via private government jet/car. They will be paid based on their current salary at their current job so as to not lose anything so that their bills can be paid. Just like a regular jury the place that they work for cannot fire them.
3: During deliberations the prospective judge will be made available to answer questions posed by the jurors.
4: All of the Judges education history and case files must be made available to the Jurors. Any and all opinions that the Judge wrote or said in public on specific case files must also be made available.
5: Jurors will be allowed to contact family members during this time but no one else.
6: No one except emergency personel and assigned security detail may get within 100 feet or call a jury member from the moment that said jury member is selected.
7: Jurors have a maximum of 6 months to decide if the judge they were reviewing is acceptable or not. If no decision can be made then judge is automatically rejected and the jurors must pay back all that was paid out due to any and all expenses incurred by jurors. This is to prevent people from taking advantage of the system. The amount jurors must pay back can be adjusted or nulled based on unavoidable circumstances, a regular court can decide this on a case by case basis.
8: When judging whether a judge should be allowed or not the decision must come from a unanimous decision, less one.
9: Each jury panel will be assigned a security detail (at least 2 security people per juror). The panel will also be assigned a lawyer from the highest rated university and law firm in the country. IE the lawyer must be from both. If that is not possible then the lawyer must be from the highest rated university and second highest rated law firm in the country or visa versa. On down the line if needed.
Please note that this is just a SUGESTION. I won't care if it gets clipped or improved on or totally thrown out. But if it is thrown out then perhaps you could also take the time to present your own idea instead of just being negative to an idea that was put out? I also thought up a couple more possible ideas while I was writing this one. So its not like there are not possibilites out there.
What I really like about your suggestions are that they allow for regular people, non politicians, to get involved in the inner workings of DC... and they'll have no interest in preserving a career or playing politics. It's all well meaning. For that reason I really like it.. but it seems like it might be costly. I think other people would argue, what about their qualifications (the jurors) how do we know we can trust them?
I know there would be pre jury selections, but it still begs the question; what type of background and education are sufficient enough? It seems like that could turn into a political fight...
Last edited: