Posted on 11/21/2004 5:21:28 AM PST by SandRat
Imagine the unfairness when the UA men's basketball team plays Virginia this afternoon if the fans in Charlottesville were allowed to elect the referees.
Now imagine the unfairness if judges in Arizona mostly were elected for their ideological purity by far-left liberals.
Or far-right conservatives.
Comparing judges to referees may appear to trivialize their role in our justice system, but both have at least one thing in common: They are supposed to be neutral.
In Arizona right now, judges are as neutral as possible. That is because in 1974, voters decided that merit, not popular elections, should be the basis for choosing judges. The voters created a system by which a bipartisan nominating commission chooses the candidates to be Supreme and Appeals Court judges, as well as Superior Court judges in Maricopa and Pima counties. There are three commissions. One for the state courts, and one each for Maricopa and Pima counties.
The appropriate commission researches and interviews each candidate and makes three recommendations from which the governor must choose. Then, after the judge has served a term, voters decide whether to keep him or her in office. It is a merit-based system that greatly reduces the role of politics in choosing judges.
It is very different than in Illinois, for example. This year, two candidates for the Illinois Supreme Court raised a total of $7.8 million for their political races, while outside groups threw in another $2 million. The campaign was marked by ads featuring "ominous narrators implying that the candidates allowed torturers to go free, or that they coddled child murderers, or released sexual predators," reported the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Or consider West Virginia, where a coal executive spent $3.5 million of his own money to help elect a Supreme Court judge, according to the Charleston Gazette. It may be only a coincidence that his company faces lawsuits the Supreme Court ultimately may resolve, but I'm sure I am not the only one who is skeptical.
To me, it's a slam-dunk that Arizona's way of choosing judges is better. But almost every year, there is an attempt in the Legislature to return to the election of judges. It is expected to happen again this legislative session.
These legislators do not want a bipartisan process to choose the judges who rule on highly charged political issues, such as school vouchers, abortion rights or gay marriages. Instead, they want voters to choose those judges with the guidance of high-priced, thirty-second ads.
Supporters of judicial elections generally say their goal is to rein in "activist" judges. They warn of "government by judiciary" and advocate the restoration of the proper balance between the courts and the legislative and executive branches.
However, the definition of an "activist" judge is not clear. Who is the "activist," a judge who rules "under God" does not belong in the Pledge of Allegiance? Or the judge who posts the Ten Commandments in her courtroom?
More often than not, whether a judge is an "activist" depends on whether one agrees with the judge's rulings. More often than not, politicians who want to elect judges think their political ideology is dominant and will remain so. The passage of time has a way of humbling that arrogance, however, as both major parties have learned.
Beyond this, the idea that voters should choose judges is based on a flawed analogy, in which judges are considered to be representatives of the people, like members of the Legislature.
The U.S. and Arizona systems of checks and balances, however, assume that judges do not represent the voters. Their job is to be independent, objective appliers of the Constitution and the law. Whether a ruling pleases or angers voters should be irrelevant.
More practically, electing judges gives rise to a host of potential conflicts. Assume, for instance, you have been sued for $10 million because of an accident. How comfortable would you be to learn that the opposing lawyer's firm had raised thousands of dollars for the judge's election campaign? Or assume you have been charged with an offense such as driving under the influence. Do you want your fate in the hands of a judge the prosecutors helped elect?
Political contributors may not be so crass as to expect a judge to be swayed in their favor. Even so, there are troubling ramifications.
"When people give money, even the most honest people," says former Supreme Court Chief Justice Stanley Feldman, "most expect access. That's what they get from everybody else. And access is one thing independent judges cannot give."
Arizona's merit system for selecting judges has given the state an excellent judiciary, one known among other states for its creativity, competence and integrity.
The state undoubtedly will pay a large penalty if it scraps that system and begins electing its judicial referees.
Whatever evils of "election" there might be, they exist in large groups, and in small groups.
The social order is better served with widespread enfranchisement of people. At the moment a mere handful of "special" folks are entitled to vote for judges in Arizona, a condition ripe for the vilest sort of corruption.
His arguments might make sense if Judges merely decided the facts of the cases before them. However, since judges have decided that *they* are the ultimate arbiters of all public policy questions (abortion, gay marriage, etc) rather than the *voters*, why shouldn't the voters elect the judges?
If the selection of Specter is any indication, the politicians will go against the will of the people in any event.
The problem is law schools are indoctrinating lawyers into leftist thinking. They do not use the founding father's intent, fairness, justice or Judeo-Christian principles to decide cases any more. They use a socialist world view mixed with moral relativism. If they keep it up and if the polticians continue to reject our will, there will be a second revolution in this country to take back the liberties that have been stolen.
I like the idea of being able to fire a judge and hire a new one if the one that I fire is an activist judge and one I hire is a strict constructionist.
Based on the way the loonie left thinks your candidate suggestions are evaluated as follows:
a Nazi -- Maybe, if he's pro-abortion but they tend to be war mongers and tied to the dreaded military/industrial cabal.
a polygamist -- Solid candidate! Heck look at the whole Kennedy clan it's all about women and booze.
a racist -- sorry, Sen. Byrd already has that position filled.
</SARCASM
In a way that's been the lefts litmus test standards for several years on Sen. consent.
Go Hoos, beat the kittys
Uh, no it's NOT.
When judges are elected by the people, as they are here in IL, the BAD ONES do get found out and get kicked OFF the Bench by "The People".
In one instance "we" voted out an IL Supreme Court CHIEF Justice who arrogantly broke numerous 'little laws, like speeding, DUI, driving without insurance and for some utterly asinine court decisions - like giving a baby (baby Jane Doe) back to her crack addict, career criminal 'mother'.In another instance a 'Crook' County Circuit Court Judge was voted "out" after repeatedly letting one particular violent predator (white guy) off with fines and probation. This guy had about 20 assault & battery arrests. He'd beat the cr@p out of people for no reason. The last straw was when he beat up a female cop, put her in the hospital and this judge once again gave him a fine.
Now 'Associate' Circuit Judges here are selected 'by a committee'-- and they all SUCK. But thankfully their term is limited and most do not go on to get elected. To me this is proof that this guy Kiser is OFF his rocker and living in a dream world. And I wonder if he'd like to be judged by someone hand selected on orders of a Mayor Richie Daley, I don't think he would.
Kiser may be but worse yet is that he's from Pima County two counties went to Kerry in AZ in this years election Cocinino (that's the one the Grand Canyon is in) and Pima and that's U of A, Tucson, and Kiser. Isn't sad that this is what we have to put up with? More confusingly wait until you see what I post on Dec 5th about the U of A campus and their remembering Dec 7, 1941.
Oh man, I can imagine the the tripe that will be spewed by the idiots like Kiser about Dec 7th. I'm guessing he'll apologize to the Japs for what "we" did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.