On Why Electing Judges is Just Odd
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. – Abraham Lincoln
Without exception, I pretty much object to Electing a Judge by popular vote. In America, where this practice is most popular, there are many judicial decisions i find distasteful and even more i am glad were made, insulated from direct public opinion. Electing a judge subjects the rest of us to the Tyranny of the Majority.
The argument for electing judges is that judges are accountable to the people if they make a series of unpopular opinions. Well, if that were true and the U.S. Supreme Court had to be elected then America would still be segregated and may still be using slavery today. Let’s not forget how unpopular those decisions are, or some are today. I site my own dislike of the eminent domain ruling as example. But even so, I believe that the judges involved arrived at their decision by the complicated reasoning of law, mental reasoning and belief in their decisions. If i don’t believe that, my faith in the system falters and i would lose hope.
Popular opinion is not the best of the smartest or best way to make a decision, especially when fear or anger take hold. Majority rule, without minority rights is inherently unfair; The tyranny of the Majority; when the majority keeps enacting laws and rules that destroy a minority until even distention is outlawed. The Federalist Papers, refers to this inequality numerous times, as well as John Stuart Mill in On Liberty. Think about all the good that would be reversed if the Majority had their way in the 60′s? Civil Rights, Nixon and Watergate, even way back to the war of 1812.
Know what else? I support the constitution and (I Paraphrase the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution) State’s Rights that say a State can do what ever the hell it wants to in its own business where it’s not in direct conflict with the Federal law or ruling. So if the states want to Elect judges, ok, I still think it’s leads to abuses and corruption of a different type. I think it robs the bench of its independence.
The means of removing bad judges after impeachment is very useful and puts a buffer on the expressed anger or fear or resentment in the populous. As of this post only about 6 federal judges have been convicted of wrong doing. Wrong doing. Not of disagreeing with their decisions.
However, while i think the system can do better, even the often elected judges hate being slapped about by the the Supreme Court of the US homeland. Elected or Not, the Supreme Court is not (with a noted exception in 2000) a political body, thou they are political savvy. Any lower judge reversed enough times simply becomes a bypass in the wheels of Justice and soon is ignored. In this way the system works. States (and people in those states ) get to decide how they want their state to run, but eventually all decisions are weighed nationally. Once again, the amazement of the Constitution and its infinite and intricate flexibility is astounding.
Still, even with all arguments presented, I still think electing judges is a …. well, you know what I think.
OceansOfThought @ June 13, 2008
Delight must be taken in the knowledge that voters are largely uninformed of all but the presidential races, if Joe Public (and his ever-obliging, stand-by-your-man wife Jane) voted judges based on his conscience and biases, this might indeed be a frightning place to live.
The problem is, biased speaking, the ones who do know or have the information are the ones we have to be careful off. I may not know who’s on my local school board, but i bet there are people who do, and not only that, they -will- vote. So, yes, your right, most of us are ignorant of the local politics, but all politics is eventually local.
[...] will of the Voter, yet our founding father didn’t trust the average voter. They feared the Tyranny of the Majority. This is one of the why we have an electoral college, so the majority of the large states [...]