Should judges be democratically elected?

[All Along The Watchtower]

In the United States, a large number of states democratically elect at least some of their judges. Obviously this doesn't apply to the federal courts, but then again....tons of cases are not handled by the feds.

Should all judges be democratically elected? Or is the entire idea of judicial elections a terrible one? Or should judges be elected at some levels of the judiciary or under certain circumstances, but not others?
 
What do you think, oh Atlas?

Curious to hear input from non-American posters on this one, as well.

[Randy Bobandy]

Nobody should be democratically elected.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Electing judges is a terrible idea, because a big part of what the judicial branch stands for is independently and dispassionately deciding on the constitutionality of the law. Making them worry about the opinions of the voting public gets in the way of that.

[Cory]

     Electing judges is a terrible idea, because a big part of what the judicial branch stands for is independently and dispassionately deciding on the constitutionality of the law. Making them worry about the opinions of the voting public gets in the way of that.

[IceSpear]

No (normal, sane)

[solarstorm]

I think electing half of the judges would be a reasonable compromise.
However, I think they shouldn't be allowed to stand for re-election; that would be a horrible conception...

[Franzl]

No (normal, sane)

[Antonio the Sixth]

No (normal, sane)

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

No (normal, sane)

[TNF]

Absolutely.

The idea that the courts are 'independent' is one of the more blatant fictions that is reproduced constantly in the public sphere. The courts, like all other institutions in bourgeois society, ultimately serve the class that rules over the rest of us. Judicial review, for example, has (with one big exception, the 1960s-70s) almost always been used to strike down laws injurious to Capital. The fact that they sometimes uphold laws that protect workers or the environment at the expense of Capital is part of the theater of bourgeois democracy, whereby the public is given the show of having real influence where none exists, and for avoiding longer term or deeper structural changes to the system.

A brilliant example of that is the very exceptional period I just mentioned. The courts, not being subject to democratic control and oversight, were those who led the way in enacting most of the major shifts in public policy during the 1960s and 1970s. Why was this? Largely on account of the fact that the backwards social policies of the US government were making the US look really awful compared to the USSR (which had full legal equality without regard to race and didn't discriminate against women in the same way the US did, although of course it had major flaws in these areas as well) in the context of the Cold War. With Southern reactionaries holding up progress on these fronts, the courts moved to do what the elected representatives of the public didn't have the guts to do, and in the process did more to effect public policy than any other institution in US history up to that point.

The courts are a 'safety valve' for the bourgeoisie because they ultimately allow it to make sure that needed reforms are enacted even if the legislature won't take action and they make it possible to strike down those actions of the legislature that weaken the bourgeoisie as a whole, in periods in which the state loses some of its class character on account of the ongoing class struggle from below.

The election of judges would not necessarily curtail the class nature of the judicial system, but it would make possible open class struggle within the judicial system. Any extension of the democratic system is a net positive because it allows for the class struggle to take on a new front and provides more of a possibility for besieging the bourgeoisie and tossing them out of power.

However, I think ideally, judges should be stripped of the substantive power they have in sentencing and be turned into more or less a simple mediator in cases brought before the court. Juries should have all power in terms of sentencing, and should be informed of their inherent right to nullify laws they find abhorrent or constitutionally suspect. Lawyers and other legal professionals should become part of a socialized system of administering the law, which would give everyone the right to a representative in court without regard to ability to pay.

And judicial review should be explicitly prohibited. If the Supreme Court takes issue with a law on constitutional grounds, that issue should be referred to the Congress, which should be able to decide whether or not to make changes to the law in question. The Supreme Court should be an appeals court of last resort and nothing more. It's members should be elected to short terms and paid the wages of an average skilled worker.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...no. Of course I gather that some US states also elect coroners as well, which is remarkable.

[Murica!]

Judges shouldn't exist, only juries.(normal)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poL7l-Uk3I8

...no. Of course I gather that some US states also elect coroners as well, which is remarkable.

The weirdest elected office in the US has to be that in Michigan, some counties have elected Drain Commissioners (under a partisan ballot as well), who manage the county's sewer system.

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poL7l-Uk3I8

...no. Of course I gather that some US states also elect coroners as well, which is remarkable.

The weirdest elected office in the US has to be that in Michigan, some counties have elected Drain Commissioners (under a partisan ballot as well), who manage the county's sewer system.

Isn't there a random town in Vermont that elects its dogcatcher?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

...no. Of course I gather that some US states also elect coroners as well, which is remarkable.

The idea that the coroners are 'independent' is one of the more blatant fictions that is reproduced constantly in the public sphere. The coroners, like all other institutions in bourgeois society, ultimately serve the class that rules over the rest of us. Confirmation of death, for example, has almost always been used to declare Socialist ideologues and comrades dead. The fact that they sometimes certifies the death of members of the Capitalist ruling-class is part of the theater of bourgeois democracy, whereby the public is given the show of actually getting rid of horrible people like Thatcher, and thereby avoiding longer term or deeper structural changes to the system.

For example if bourgeois establishment coroners hadn't "confirmed" Lenin's death, he could have gone on spreading his message for the coming centuries and we would have already had a global workers' people's republic without false unelected judges imposing the tyranny of free market economics and neoliberal "liberty" upon us!     

[Goldwater]

No (normal, sane)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poL7l-Uk3I8

...no. Of course I gather that some US states also elect coroners as well, which is remarkable.

The weirdest elected office in the US has to be that in Michigan, some counties have elected Drain Commissioners (under a partisan ballot as well), who manage the county's sewer system.

Isn't there a random town in Vermont that elects its dogcatcher?

Of course when people hear that they have some image like from cartoons of a guy running around chasing stray dogs with a giant net. That town, along with many others in the 19th century and it remains the only one to still do so today, actually elects an "animal control officer" who is basically in charge of the public safety work in regards to stray animals and the local animal shelters. So actually an important job, but most certainly not one that should be elected.

Similarly elected coroners are not CSI type people who actually physically examine all bodies of reported deaths in the area, rather they run and oversee the department responsible for doing so, this means they also can file reports on cause of death that determines if a murder investigation should proceed or not, and proceed over inquest hearings in a role equivalent to a judge. So yeah, it's actually an important job too. But it's not one that should be elected.

[Replicator]

Very perverted way of doing things. Democratically deciding legal matters leads to a society where people always get what they want good or bad.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Nobody should be democratically elected.

Ugh, you're back?

[ElectionsGuy]

No, mostly because the judicial branch shouldn't be politicized the same way the executive and legislative branches are.

[Sumner 1868]

Yes, but only if it's a nonpartisan election.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, but only if it's a nonpartisan election.

Elections are always partisan.

[Sumner 1868]

Yes, but only if it's a nonpartisan election.

Elections are always partisan.

I meant that judges shouldn't run as members or nominees of political parties. A ideological divide in many of these races would be inevitable, but party politics would be very bad indeed.

[LeBron]

If they are democratically elected, I would prefer to see party ID on the ballot. Otherwise, no and in it's place I would most likely support a merit system.

Voters almost never look up who these judges are and if they do decide to vote in the election (rather than leave it blank which many often do), they vote off of whose name sounds coolest. It makes a heck of a lot more sense to allow them to vote on party affiliation (which is important in many judicial races - especially those for the state supreme court) than it does to make voters do a shot in the dark.

[Ebsy]

I'm happy Missouri has retention votes instead of judicial elections. The cluster [Inks] across the river in Illinois has convinced me that judicial elections are absolutely wretched.