• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judicial elections

Should there be judicial elections?

  • yes, it helps weed out corruption

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • no, it's tyranny of the majority

    Votes: 10 83.3%

  • idk

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Total voters
    12
M

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
489
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Judicial elections are done at the state level in 34 states. In some states, it's a typical election with a republican vs a democrat while in others, it's a retention election in which if a judge loses, the governor picks a new one.

Personally, I think that judges are supposed to ensure that justice is served without fear of disapproval from the majority. I do realize that some judges might not be very good at their job and that democracy helps root out corruption but judge rulings are harder to find than votes by a congressman.
 
I really don't think there should be judicial elections at all, including the Supreme Court. There should be a pool of independently verified judges that are qualified for the position and when an opening comes available, one should randomly be placed in the spot.
 
Cephus said:
I really don't think there should be judicial elections at all, including the Supreme Court. There should be a pool of independently verified judges that are qualified for the position and when an opening comes available, one should randomly be placed in the spot.
Click to expand...
I'm kind of on the fence, but I lean toward this.

Places I have lived generally only have votes for retention, and I almost never vote at all on those. With a couple exceptions, I don't know who these people are and as such I do not feel I should be voting. I leave those races blank.

I really like the random appointment thing, btw.
 
Cephus said:
I really don't think there should be judicial elections at all, including the Supreme Court. There should be a pool of independently verified judges that are qualified for the position and when an opening comes available, one should randomly be placed in the spot.
Click to expand...

well, how would the governor know who's most qualified?
 
Masterhawk said:
Judicial elections are done at the state level in 34 states. In some states, it's a typical election with a republican vs a democrat while in others, it's a retention election in which if a judge loses, the governor picks a new one.

Personally, I think that judges are supposed to ensure that justice is served without fear of disapproval from the majority. I do realize that some judges might not be very good at their job and that democracy helps root out corruption but judge rulings are harder to find than votes by a congressman.
Click to expand...


I say no. How well they do or don't do their job shouldn't be motivated by trying to appease voters so they can keep their job in the next round of election.. Lousy judges should be impeached. Like that one judge who gave a slap on the wrist to a man who repeatedly raped a 12 year old.

That said if I know about any ****ed up rulings made by a judge and his or her reelection is coming up I will vote to remove him or vote for the other guy. Judges like that should be removed as quickly as possible before they do any more damage.
 
We elect judges here in Texas. The results aren't good, so no, they shouldn't be elected, because their campaign money will mostly come from lawyers who practice in their jurisdictions and courts. There should definitely be a decent judicial review process, however, and removing the incompetents and corrupt hacks should be easier than it is now, especially re the Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, with term limits on the SC, maybe 10 to 15 years being long enough. And Ginzburg should resign if she has any principles at all; any judge who whines and threatens to move to another country because she doesn't like an election outcome isn't an American, just another free loader, and has no business ruling on this country's laws. There should definitely be a process for removing such people.
 
Masterhawk said:
Judicial elections are done at the state level in 34 states. In some states, it's a typical election with a republican vs a democrat while in others, it's a retention election in which if a judge loses, the governor picks a new one.

Personally, I think that judges are supposed to ensure that justice is served without fear of disapproval from the majority. I do realize that some judges might not be very good at their job and that democracy helps root out corruption but judge rulings are harder to find than votes by a congressman.
Click to expand...

We elect judges in Georgia, that is except for the our state supreme court which the governor selects and legislature confirms. So there are quite a lot of differences in our judges depending on where they rule or were elected from. Both political philosophy and how they rule from the bench. Atlanta and Fulton county and the surrounding metro area elect very liberal judges who tend to let their feelings over ride the law while most of the rest of Georgia goes with stricter judges.

I would say there really isn't much difference one way or the other. Once a judge is elected, he is set for life although the term is for four years. Very rarely does anyone one challenge an incumbent judge. I guess that is like a silent agreement between lawyers that they never challenge a sitting judge that wants to continue his judgeship.
 
Cephus said:
I really don't think there should be judicial elections at all, including the Supreme Court. There should be a pool of independently verified judges that are qualified for the position and when an opening comes available, one should randomly be placed in the spot.
Click to expand...

Should they also be randomly rotated out of their slots?

I know that there have been various ruling and proceedings that were unjustly directed by biased judges.
 
Cephus said:
Where did I ever mention governors?
Click to expand...

in states with retention elections and those that don't do judicial elections, the governor appoints judges which are then approved by the state congress. And federal judges are appointed by the president and approved by congress.
 
code1211 said:
Should they also be randomly rotated out of their slots?

I know that there have been various ruling and proceedings that were unjustly directed by biased judges.
Click to expand...

That's certainly a possibility. I don't like the idea of judges or justices being in place for life. Clearly, they can be bought and they can become senile. I have no problem with them serving, say, 10 years on the bench and then being replaced.
 
Masterhawk said:
in states with retention elections and those that don't do judicial elections, the governor appoints judges which are then approved by the state congress. And federal judges are appointed by the president and approved by congress.
Click to expand...

But clearly what I said is meant to remove governors and congresspeople from the equation entirely. When you have elected officials making the decisions, you introduce political bias. I want to remove that. Nobody gets to stack any court, period. Those that are qualified to sit on a court can, at random, be assigned to said court, perhaps for a limited amount of time. The political makeup of the court would therefore be random.
 
Cephus said:
That's certainly a possibility. I don't like the idea of judges or justices being in place for life. Clearly, they can be bought and they can become senile. I have no problem with them serving, say, 10 years on the bench and then being replaced.
Click to expand...

They can also be just plain biased.

There is a whole history of judicial bias as regards the checkered past we have recorded recorded in our civil rights cases.

Where I'm from, Minnesota, Mile Lord presided over the Reserve Mining trial in which the State of Minnesota was suing US Steel, the Company that had swindled one of Lord's ancestors out of a fortune.

I'm not sure how to define recusal. I'm better at disqualification. Both should have applied to Lord's participation in this case.
 
https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_local_judicial_elections,_2016

The selection, election and retention process regarding Florida judges stinks to High Heaven! The elitism and manipulation rankles me. I don't have a revision plan in mind. The creation of such would take serious participation, informed discussion and debate. I know part of my frustration stems from my skill set and my personal limitations. I have a history of maintaining civility when Law Enforcement has come knocking or sought to interact with me. I despise the theatrical nature of most court rooms and the general arrogance of most judges. I want to sense that judges sweat more than they seem to over the decisions made in their court rooms. I have a nagging feeling of mistrust. I think the vetting system to become a judge and the vast volume of unfinished cases dulls a commitment to integrity... and created a judiciary that leaves little to brag about and much to improve on.
 
Perotista said:
We elect judges in Georgia, that is except for the our state supreme court which the governor selects and legislature confirms. So there are quite a lot of differences in our judges depending on where they rule or were elected from. Both political philosophy and how they rule from the bench. Atlanta and Fulton county and the surrounding metro area elect very liberal judges who tend to let their feelings over ride the law while most of the rest of Georgia goes with stricter judges.

I would say there really isn't much difference one way or the other. Once a judge is elected, he is set for life although the term is for four years. Very rarely does anyone one challenge an incumbent judge. I guess that is like a silent agreement between lawyers that they never challenge a sitting judge that wants to continue his judgeship.
Click to expand...

The Judge McMillan Story

Do not underestimate that silent understanding that a lawyer who challenges a sitting judge may face some serious wrath! Judge McMillan stuck around after the JQC kicked him off his bench and went on to run a highly successful chain of DUI and Mandatory Anger Management classes fed to him from the same system he got the boot from. Last I heard, he drives around in his new Tesla.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
The Judge McMillan Story

Do not underestimate that silent understanding that a lawyer who challenges a sitting judge may face some serious wrath! Judge McMillan stuck around after the JQC kicked him off his bench and went on to run a highly successful chain of DUI and Mandatory Anger Management classes fed to him from the same system he got the boot from. Last I heard, he drives around in his new Tesla.
Click to expand...

Hold judge accountable, man says - News - Sarasota Herald-Tribune - Sarasota, FL

For the few of you who might have read THE JUDGE MCMILLAN STORY, this follow up sure made me grin! The JQC forced McMillan off the bench. Gov. Jeb Bush reinstated Judge George Brown. Judge Brown drove one of his adult children, a known crackhead, around town while the son committed burglaries. In 1990, I had filed a small claim against an auto mechanic. Judge Brown presided. I won by default. A few days later I went to record my judgment and found out Judge Brown had changed his mind. I had to reappear and give the respondent a 2nd chance. I hired a court reporter to give me a required transcript in case I chose to appeal. For the 2nd time, Judge Brown immediately ruled in my favor. One last aside, Manatee County and Trumpland go hand in hand! Trumpsters dominate!
 
The problem with electing judges is that the majority of voters haven't got a clue who they are or their prior or current record. Most run unopposed. It would be better to leave it up to the state government to appoint judges to these positions. IMO
 
In Florida, so it seems, the real power and control of the state judiciary lies with the local newspaper editorial staff, the Florida Bar, the JQC, and the working lawyers within a local community. I can't think of a single time the public voted not to retain a Florida judge. You can find many examples of the JQC removing a duly elected Florida judge. The public voting for judges amounts to window dressing and nothing substantive. Working lawyers and community VIPs treat the voting public like sheep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom