Should Supreme Court Justices be elected?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

People often talk about how much they hate unelected judges imposing their will on the people

If judges stuck to interpreting the law as is written, instead of trying to be social activists with gavels, this wouldn't be a problem.

The solution is not to elect judges.  The solution is appoint constructionist judges.  If the laws are deemed unfair, it's the reponsibility of the people to elect legislators who will change them.  If the people don't do that... well, we get exactly the government we deserve, don't we?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I used to think it would be a good idea to have them elected, but after reading all the arguments I reconsider. But still, I'd like to share some toughts about it:
--Many State Supremem Court Justices are elected. They're decisions seem little worse than any other State Supreme courte Justice.
--Better yet, a lot of states have their all judicial branch elected. Once again, it seems little worse than any others.

You know what happens?  Good judges who uphold the law are booted out by the people for failure to be "tough on crime."  At least, this is the case in Wisconsin.  It's bad enough when DAs are fired by the people because of low conviction rates.  When judges also have a built-in incentive to convict, it kinda undermines the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the judges stuck to interpreting the law as written, this wouldn't be a problem.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I used to think it would be a good idea to have them elected, but after reading all the arguments I reconsider. But still, I'd like to share some toughts about it:
--Many State Supremem Court Justices are elected. They're decisions seem little worse than any other State Supreme courte Justice.
--Better yet, a lot of states have their all judicial branch elected. Once again, it seems little worse than any others.

You know what happens?  Good judges who uphold the law are booted out by the people for failure to be "tough on crime."  At least, this is the case in Wisconsin.  It's bad enough when DAs are fired by the people because of low conviction rates.  When judges also have a built-in incentive to convict, it kinda undermines the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

WI sounds different than IL in that respect. I've seen many judicial elections and retention votes here at the circuit, appelate and supreme court level. I can't recall any that have been about convivtion rate for criminal cases.

I wish I could find some election ad archives for WI judicial races.  It seems like, whenever there's a hotly contested bench seat, the whole race devolves into which candidate is tougher on criminals.  Qualifications be damned.  We've got to think of the children!  (As if electing the other guy will somehow result in the streets being flooded with drug pushers and pedophiles.)

I'm glad IL is better in this regard.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Ok, what about this: the President would appoint someone, then he would need congressional aproval, and then, if congress aproved, he would have to be subject to a nationwide vote. A vote only Yes or No. If No won, then the process would start again. What about it?

1. It would be extremely expensive.
2. It would be extremely slow.
3. Congress already acts as a delegate of the popular will.
4. Would it really change anything?  Would it prevent judges from legislating from the bench?  I think, in fact, that they would be more likely to legislate, believing themselves to have been given a popular mandate from the American people.

All it would really do is make Americans feel slightly less resentful towards judicial activism.  It wouldn't prevent it.

(Sorry, I don't intend this to be a flame.  I just feel strongly that the judiciary needs to be independent and not subject to politics.)

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Well, if that's the point, then i have a sugestion. What about getting some comitee where congress, judges and the executive branch were represented, and have it appoint the judges?

Well, besides the judiciary being independent, they also need their power checked by the other branches.  We have that: the Executive appoints, the Legislature consents.  To allow the judiciary a say in their own composition would remove a lot of that check on their power.

The thing that differentiates the courts is that they ultimately decide what the law means.  That is a tremendous amount of power.  Of the three branches, the one that poses the biggest risk of being used for a coup is the Judicial.  If you politicize the court (by making them subject to popular election) you make it far too easy for ideology to rule the day, over sound legal judgement.  Judges must be able to interpret the law as impartially and independently as possible.  Sure, ideology is going to color their judgement, but once you subject them to the whims of politics, all semblance of independence and impartiality goes out the window.  The judiciary becomes nothing more than a tool for whatever ideological majority exists to dominate the government.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

If the judges stuck to interpreting the law as written, this wouldn't be a problem.

This is a red herring. Judges do "stick to interpreting the law as written," except when they decide that the law is unconstitutional

Interpretation includes determining that a law is nullified by a higher law.  Our Constitution is simply the highest law in the land.  Declaring a law unconstitutional is still interpreting the law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Determining that a law is badly phrased or self-contradictory is also interpreting the law.