Should Supreme Court Justices be elected?

[Bono]

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.
--The President in offic at the time of appionting Justices has the power to dictate something that will affect the country long after he leaves office.

[Bono]

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.

Well, I agree the system is not flawless. But it's better to hve judges set in office by the people then by corrupt bureaucrats.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, the fact is they don't.

[Bono]

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?

[Bono]

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.)

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?

[Bono]

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.

Well, in that case, the congress should be given extra powers to oversee the Judiciary.
Still, I think a confirmation vote would help to secure the legitimacy of the judges. It would not need to be a 50% requierement. let's say if more than 70% of the peple rejected that judge, he woulnd't be nominated.
It's just that I have a hard time trusting politicians to appoint the judges. I think the way they act now, like Bush and Kerry are doing about pro-life and pro-choice judges is much more degradating than elected judges.