Soros and other leftists don't like judicial elections, preferring instead that lawyers select them.
Soros, related groups really want judicial control
"Soros-funded groups still cling to the notion that judicial independence and integrity can only be assured by handing the selection of judges over to lawyer-based groups and committees. Democracy and elections are best left to the executive and legislative branches of government, they say.
Trust that lawyers will determine the best people to arbitrate over every minute detail of society that is now ultimately decided in court, they say. This is the way to establish judicial independence, they say.
And, if you feel differently from these groups, be ready to be labeled as an "attack on the judiciary." Free speech is great for Soros' groups, but not for anyone else.
These groups would never admit the need for legal reform, nor would they acknowledge that some judges are better than others. They would never acknowledge an even more dramatic thought that some judges might not be living up the high standards they've been trusted to uphold and maintain.
It's hypocrisy at its worst."
“...choose judges on the basis of merit, rather than their ability to win an election.”
LOL! What a friggin joke. Judges are usually lawyers who can’t make a living as lawyers so they become judges.
I was listening few years ago to the local NPR station here in SE PA and there was that very same discussion, only concerning PA elected judges specifically. The whole thing was and is still based on the fact that the judicial elections have become more and more like the general elections - with a lot of money at stake as everyone is trying to get “their” judge in so hopefully someday there will be a nice payback in form of favorable decisions etc. Also mentioned was the ever-increasing pressures to keep tabs on potential donors as the budgets for once-neglected elections have escalated with all the attention from the wrong kind of people this entails. The judicial reform sought by the proponents of the the abolition of all judicial elections seems to have merit to those too lazy to deal with the underlying problem - the financing of the campaigns. It also bring onboard a lot of people who honestly believe that choosing by merit means what it says. Their illusions/self-delusions aside, this argument may have certain validity in a society with no sizable internal conflicts and a mature political culture where an informal mutual understanding would readily identify/remove those willing to subvert that society’s ideals to their short-term political/commercial/whatever gains. We don’t live on that kind of society as shown by the ever-present underhanded tactics applied daily throughout the political spectrum - I think everyone here can come up with few examples on his/her own. The current election system can be quite bad but is at least obvious. Handing over the rains to a an exclusive club of people whose only achievement in life is jingling words would be a far worse as it will remove the public scrutiny from the process and it will confine any choices to a previously established litmus tests set by whoever rules the roost....and no one needs that kind of chickens around. If you ever happen to listen to that kind of discussion as I did for an hour eventually you’ll hear about the inability of the “Joe Shmoe” to make the right decision as to who is more qualified to be a judge etc. Sometimes there’s some truth to that - too many people couldn’t care less about local elections of any kind, and when they do they often vote en block. Removing that choice however without establishing a viable alternative runs counter to all America stands for. Letting the “professionals” run the show among themselves is a nonstarter. Allowing them to advertise minimum qualifications with detailed explanations for what they mean would be welcome as it will establish a base for skills comparison which is sorely needed. I get the sentiment about the local county judge who is one of us - and I generally agree with the premise. Sometimes however the county judge doesn’t know or care about basic constitutional rights and it takes higher court to reverse idiotic rulings on local level who never should have been made to begin with. That kind of screwups play in the hands of these same people and their useful idiots who’d rather have this election thing play internally for number of reasons, not all of them nefarious but ultimately leading to a society where the judiciary won’t be accountable to the populace and as far as any traces of accountability are still present they will be superficial to a point of being meaningless. One positive thing of such a development would be the gradual establishment of USA-wide judicial standards as far as academics/courtroom behavior are concerned. Any self-respecting gild does that and certain uniformity is helpful especially to folks who deal with the system occasionally. That very uniformity however can also be hijacked and used as a tool to change the course of the ship far more easily when compared with a fleet of smaller boats.Imperfect analogy indeed but this is what I can come with right now.
If Congress would do it's duty and remove Federal judges for judicial "bad behaviors", as the Constitution provides, that would be a Good Thing. But since they seem to have forgotten they have that power, maybe we should just go to the "continuence" election system, so we could do it for them.
If Congress would do it's duty and remove Federal judges for judicial "bad behaviors", as the Constitution provides, that would be a Good Thing. But since they seem to have forgotten they have that power, maybe we should just go to the "continuance" election system, so we could do it for them.
O’Connor is one of the reasons the “Reagan Revolution” was so temporary.
Thanks loads, Sandy!
I have two words for this that every California Freeper will remember:
Rose Bird