|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 06:16 PM EDT |
Political campaigns to remove judges who make unpopular decisions are all *that*
new. Read up on Rose Bird...former Chief Justice in California.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 08:26 PM EDT |
Iowa ran into this in the past election cycle. The Supreme
Court upheld the law that allows same-sex couples to get
married. That next election, all of the Justices who were up
for reelection (two I think) were removed. IIRC, the groups
responsible plan to get the rest of them removed as well.
I'm all for not-voting in/out Judges for this very reason.
Because people with particular agendas (regardless of what
they are) can push their agenda--even if it's in violation
of the Constitution.
Have a great day:)
Patrick.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 01:13 AM EDT |
Lincoln famously stated "government of the people, by the people, for the
people".
Election of judges insures that the legal class does not become an elite
disconnected from the values of the people.
I am not aware of many substantial judicial controversies related to elected
judges except the relatively recent Iowa case where a very large number of
citizens decided that some of their elected Justices did not represent their
idea of justice.
On the other hand the appointed Justices of the Supreme Court handed down the
Roe vs Wade decision in what many in legal academia (on both sides of the
political spectrum) consider one of the most ill considered decisions in Supreme
Court history, not so much for the outcome but for the lack of underpinning and
the far reaching proscriptive decision.
Imagine if the Supreme Court has simply struck down the Texas law as arbitrary
as it has struck down some death penalty laws. That would have struck down most
states abortion laws and would have resulted in most states legislatures
enacting new laws. Eventually the opponents would have had their say. The
political forces would have come to an accommodation or the Supreme Court would
have (with the advise of several Appeals Courts) decided a much narrower case.
That defective decision set off almost 50 years of political extremism on both
sides of the question, with no end in sight.
Compare that to the Supreme Courts death penalty decisions. Several times the
Supreme Court has effectively disallowed many if not all states death penalty
procedures without mandating a single proscriptive mandate. The states adapted
their processes and the Supreme Court has been presented with many challenges to
these state procedures. That has substantially clarified and defined the limits.
This tremendous shift occurred almost without political repercussions, except
for the minority which totally opposes the death penalty under any
circumstances.
This is similar to the cases leading up to Brown vs Board of Education. While
Brown was clearly the correct decision, as far as I know a long line of cases
the Supreme Court never ever approved "separate but equal" educational
facilities. There was plenty of sophistry from Plessey vs Ferguson which
arguably required states to provide equal facilities to blacks (something which
was clearly lacking in every state before that the time).
In short,regardless of how judges are selected there is plenty of latitude to
criticize how the processes can be subverted.
If one were to look at the European models one need only look at the period from
1930 through 1945 to see that many national systems of "merit"
selection were subverted.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
