-—He went on to say that “if the defendant thought the police officer’s entry into his home was illegal, he has plenty of opportunities to raise that issue through the court system. The risk of harm to both the police and the defendant is too great to allow people to take matters into their own hands.”-—
Wow. Evidently one has 4th Amendment rights only after they have been violated and then one must spends years and lots of money in courts to have them upheld. Has Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels said anything on this ruling? Especially since he thought the judicial appointment process in Indiana was far superior to electing jurists.
Obviously there are risks in any system that leads to inferior judges ~ and it's pretty obvious the Indiana system leads to weirdos and freaks getting appointed.
Governors really don't have a choice in these systems ~ they get to pick 1 out of 3, or 2 from a list ~ that sort of thing.
Sarah Palin was faced with a choice between two radical abortion fanatics so she chose the least bad ~ not having any other choice.
We have to remove our Governors from this sort of partisanship and the way to do that is either select judges by lot from the broad masses of the people OR have them run for election and let the people chose.
It's always good to expand the franchise ~ that's the history of America.
That vetoed bill would've changed it for just one county and also created a new circuit court. He also saw it as a Democrat power grab.
We have elected judges in CA. It's no great thing. Voters know nothing about them. They collude to avoid saying anything useful by hiding behind an "ethics" code. The press show no interest in vetting them thus the trial lawyer favorites typically prevail thanks to union run GOTV operations.
In Indiana, newly appointed picks do come up for a retention vote after their first two years. Daniels pick should be up in Nov. 2012.
Finally, the minority were 1R, 1D appointees, the majority 2R, 1D appointees.