Supremes oppose judicial elections

Submitted by scharrison on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 11:34am

Removing voters from the equation:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Thursday night that she believes states should give up the practice of electing judges. "If there's a reform I would make, it would be that," Ginsburg said during a question-and-answer session of the National Association of Women Judges, which is meeting in Washington.

Retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor has made the issue her priority since leaving the Supreme Court in 2006, arguing that raising campaign funds and promising specific performance on the bench are antithetical to the practice of judging. She favors merit selection or an appointment system such as the one used to pick federal judges.

What say you?

Share on Facebook

I say "amen"

Submitted by Blue NC on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 11:41am.

While we have some great elected judges, it's far too much of a crap shoot for me. Good to see the Supremes weigh in on this.

This should be high on the agenda of the General Assembly next year.

I'm on the fence

Submitted by scharrison on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 11:53am.

I ran into Doug Clark at Kay Hagan's election nite gala, and we had a fairly lengthy (considering the hoopla) discussion about this. He's of the same mind as you, that electing judges doesn't elevate the best to the bench. But I'm not so sure appointing people solves that either, especially with our odious system of patronage in place.

What I see here

Submitted by Foxtrot on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 12:02pm.

On the one hand we have people having to campaign for these judgeships which necessarily requires them to give their opinions on a great many matters and would, no doubt, have to favor views of supporters that elect them (just as in a state senate or state house or even a county commissioner's contest). On the other hand, if this were changed and these judgeships were made "appointments", much the same would be required of those judges because the people responsible for making the appointments would, themselves, most certainly look to these people to make rulings that favored their particular political and/or legislative agendas.

The best argument to what I am suggesting here would be for there to be a "bi-partisan" panel or some kind of apolitical entity that made the appointments.

___________________________________________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance" __ Robert Quillen

It's inherently political

Submitted by jmcharry on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 3:02pm.

It's just a question of who has the franchise. An appointment or panel selection system would likely increase the power of a small cadre of lawyers. Is that better? I'm not sure.

Fools at the Bar of Justice?

Submitted by MadameJusticeWatch on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 11:56am.

Any genric idiot of both corporate parties who believes that this will solve the judical process of injustice is either very naive or simply a fool who hates democracy. Is this not the same Supreme Court that said Corporations were individuals in the political process?

Um, actually Justice

Submitted by Foxtrot on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 1:32pm.

I think this is more about what a retired Supreme Court justice believes. I did not read into it that the SCOTUS overall saying this. Could be wrong though.

Edited..

___________________________________________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance" __ Robert Quillen

Justice Deny! UnJustice Serve!

Submitted by MadameJusticeWatch on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 4:36pm.

I think this is more about what a retired Supreme Court justice believes* Foxtrot

Maybe! Who cares what Sandra Day O'Connor said! For the record her major opinions knife the consitution on the 4th amendment, Police illegal search and wiretaps without warrents. In short she supported the Police State when the chips were down. You will note the present Chief Justice Roberts express his opinion recently, which is about the same as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, since the real truth is that both political parties are of the same judical monster that seeks to destroy individual rights...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/john-roberts-scene-at-oba_n_492...

Give us a break

Submitted by Foxtrot on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 4:51pm.

You most certainly have a better presentation than that. Well...maybe not. I am like James..you seem to be a few bricks shy of a load.

But, hey, I love ya anyway. Never think otherwise :)

___________________________________________________
“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance" __ Robert Quillen

Breakdancing with no Corporate Judical mind set?

Submitted by MadameJusticeWatch on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 5:56pm.

You most certainly have a better presentation than that. Well...maybe not. I am like James..you seem to be a few bricks shy of a load* Foxtrot

You didn't ask for a 14 day semiar without a Glenn Beck Blackboard on the world wide new age judical industrial prison complex! And stop listening to James! He is like Glenn Beck when he loses it over some stupid republican who says he is the step-child of Art Pope...

Judicial appointments

Submitted by cjmalone on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 8:13pm.

I hate to admit it, but many times in the past I've voted with fairly full confidence on all the elected positions--well, except the Soil & Water one--until I came to the judiciary. I might know a few of them, but mostly draw a question mark in my mind.

Then the moral dilemma: Do I skip this part? do I quess? Male or female? Stronger sounding name? These are important jobs and I fear this right is being wasted on me.

We need to improve on this process. The talents that get one elected are not always the same talents needed in holding down the elected office, especially in being a judge at any level.

If I am elected to the NC Senate this year, I will be open to studying this issue. Perhaps a mix of elections and appointments--and not by the Legislature--would be a good place to start.

Charles Malone
www.charlesmalonencsenate.com

Charles Malone

Education of the Masses?

Submitted by MadameJusticeWatch on Fri, 03/12/2010 - 11:35pm.

Then the moral dilemma: Do I skip this part? do I quess? Male or female? Stronger sounding name? These are important jobs and I fear this right is being wasted on me* Candiate

It's not a moral dileamma anymore for judical elections, The age of the internet is here and their is no reason to use excuses for not knowing the judical candiate by simply visiting their website or Goolge on their past judical affairs as a lawyer or their political beliefs. Thomas Jefferson once wrote " a informed and educational elector will always be the foundation of good government." The present excuses for the voter who is not inform or lazy simply translates out to what they get as a elected office holder.

Since this country is being held together by a thread at the moment says one thing. You get what you vote for? Or get Bread and Circus's by a Ceasar who choses your form of government whether you like it or not...