Should judges be democratically elected?

[TDAS04]

Of course not.  The right rulings will not always please popular opinion, and judges need some insulation from politics if they're going to interpret the law impartially.

However, SCOTUS justices should be limited to 20 years on the bench.  Otherwise, presidents scramble for young judges who will live for a long time, placing older, experienced judges at a disadvantage for selection.

[Dereich]

I don't believe that democracy is incompatible with the judicial branch. If all the potential candidates were at least qualified to interpret the law, there's no reason it should be the governor and not the people choosing judges. State bar associations could set necessary standards to run for judicial office and the people could make the final choice.

Reelection, not the initial election is the big problem. Judges shouldn't face regular reelection campaigns or you get all the problems everyone is describing. Either judges should never face reelection or they should only face recall elections requiring a supermajority to remove them from office.

[SteveRogers]

No, they shouldn't be elected. Does the appointment process completely insulate the judiciary from partisan politics? Of course not. The executive is still going to appoint judges that they agree with ideologically. But the greatest danger from elected judges comes not from partisan bias, but from much more direct conflicts of interest. In states like Texas where all judges are elected, most of the campaign donations to judicial candidates come from either (1) lawyers, or (2) litigants that have or are likely to have cases pending in that court. It's one thing to have judges who are partisan hacks. It's another thing to have judges who are directly in the pocket of specific corporations and special interests like your average legislator is.

Now I understand that at the state level it would be difficult to come up with a good system for appointing all your county judges and the like. But at the very least state high courts should be appointed and not elected.   

[Torie]

Of course not. It's nutter.

[RogueBeaver]

Of course not. It's nutter.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Of course not. It's nutter.

Welcome to Nutter PA

[Torie]

Of course not. It's nutter.

Welcome to Nutter PA

NY elects all the judges on party lines. Some are not even lawyers. Suffice it to say, the result is well -unfortunate. The level of law practice up here in the boonies really, really sucks - both judges and lawyers. It's appalling.

[SteveRogers]

This is what you're asking for when judges have to campaign:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caperton_v._A.T._Massey_Coal_Co.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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.

     California has retention votes too and they've proven to be terrible. Probably not as bad as actual elections, but nothing to be happy about.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

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.

     California has retention votes too and they've proven to be terrible. Probably not as bad as actual elections, but nothing to be happy about.

Has a judge ever actually lost his or her seat from this?

[Edit]: Only three judges in California history have ever lost their seats, all in 1986 because they opposed the death penalty.

[politicallefty]

No, absolutely not. I do not at all believe electing judges can be compatible with a Constitution that guarantees basic fundamental rights. I can think of very few ideas more idiotic than the idea of an elected judiciary.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

More proof electing them is a bad idea.

[andrew_c]

No, judges should not be elected.  Judges should be accountable to the law, not the people, because they represent the law. 

[Leinad]

No, judges should not be elected.  Judges should be accountable to the law, not the people, because they represent the law. 

Perfectly said.

Now, I think that judges should be elected by congress (obviously the state or local congress for a judge in that region). I'd say that Supreme Court judges should serve terms, and have them up for re-election. I'd probably have it be staggered 6-year terms where 3 come up every 2 years, and the 3 are selected by the entire congress by Single Transferable Vote. Make the judges answerable, but not to the people who understandably don't follow what they're doing or know about law, but who people who do.

Nobody should be democratically elected.

Um...can you explain that stance to me? I think that, for positions that answer to the people, a vote of the people is the best way to appoint them. Of course I'd use different voting methods to give voters more options (no FPTP or WTA), but I don't see how eliminating democracy altogether leads to anything but tyranny or at least a government even less efficient and even more out-of-touch than it is now.

[/]

Nobody should be democratically elected.

[SWE]

Nobody should be democratically elected.

Um...can you explain that stance to me? I think that, for positions that answer to the people, a vote of the people is the best way to appoint them. Of course I'd use different voting methods to give voters more options (no FPTP or WTA), but I don't see how eliminating democracy altogether leads to anything but tyranny or at least a government even less efficient and even more out-of-touch than it is now.

You're arguing with a banned sock account ftr

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

Retention is bad too. See California, 1986.

[Blair]

Some seem to be pushing for this, on the right. It would be the worst thing possible

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Absolutely not.  Judicial elections is a terrible idea.

[Will of the People]

Now that they once again ruled in favor of fags and libtards and against the will of the tax payers and human beings - absolutely!!!

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Yes. Retention vote every 10 years or so.

[WVdemocrat]

Yes. Retention vote every 10 years or so.

Why? Then they suddenly become politicians. And then you've got SuperPACs involved.

They are insulated from public opinion and pressure so that they make the decisions possible, without having to worry about getting re-elected.

[JohnRM]

I am Unsure/Conflicted.

I am not a fan of too many elections. If it were up to me, Senators would still be appointed by the state legislature and there would be not popular vote for the Presidency, but rather a jury-style electoral college, selection by the state legislatures, or something along those lines. The most significant reason that voter turnout in the United States is low is that we have so many elections. This would also push politics down to a lower level and increase the power of the states and local government.

[WVdemocrat]

I am Unsure/Conflicted.

I am not a fan of too many elections. If it were up to me, Senators would still be appointed by the state legislature and there would be not popular vote for the Presidency, but rather a jury-style electoral college, selection by the state legislatures, or something along those lines. The most significant reason that voter turnout in the United States is low is that we have so many elections. This would also push politics down to a lower level and increase the power of the states and local government.

So if you think even the president should not be democratically elected, then who exactly do you think should? County commissioners?

[Clark Kent]

Judges are supposed to be impartial interpreters and enforcers of the law, and having them subject to public opinion would hinder that, so no, they should not be elected.

That being said, judges should face term limits.