Iowa’s rejection of three state supreme court justices who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage underscored the growing electoral vulnerability of state judges as more and more are targeted by special interest groups, legal scholars and jurists said Thursday.
“It just illustrated something that has been troubling many of us for many, many years,” California Chief Justice Ronald M. George said. “The election of judges is not necessarily the best way to select them.”
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
“The election of judges is not necessarily the best way to select them.”
In fact, it may be the worst way to select them. Same with prosecutors.
The elected state judiciaries are probably the single most insane aspect of American governance, and probably the root of much of the dysfunction in American society.
Throw in the state/federal separation, and effectively much of the U.S. has two justice systems: a competent first-world justice system to oversee the concerns of the powerful and well-connected, and a corrupt and bungling third-world justice system to oversee everything else. And as only the powerful and well-connected seem to hold any sway in American governance, nothing gets done about it.
Is there another country in the world that elects judges? I cannot think of any.
John: Good question. I think I’ll ask twitter.
Having grown up in Canuckistan, I was aghast at the idea of voting for judges. One of my Canuck friends pointed out that they don’t elect judges “because we’re not insane”
Here’s another case: a DA in Colorado who has decided to prosecute people for racing with someone else’s bib number and throwing snowballs, but not for hit and run.
http://environment.change.org/blog/view/hitting_a_cyclist_might_not_matter_much_if_you_drive_a_mercedes
and
http://abusivediscretion.wordpress.com/2010/05/08/da-mark-hurlbert-charges-two-top-women-mountain-bike-racers-with-felony-criminal-impersonation-for-using-false-bib-number-in-leadville-trail-100-competition-snowball-prosecutor-strikes-again/
(not that any of those isn’t a crime, but if hitting someone with a snowball is a felony, then surely hitting them with a car and driving off should be some kind of crime)
In Iowa it is my understanding that the judges are not elected, but that there is a yes or no vote on whether to permit them to remain as judges after they have served a period of time.
I’d suggest that I certainly do not like the people Bush has appointed for the most part do you?
Finally, the Iowa justices decided that they would take the “high” road and not campaign. Therefore, they did not sully their hands and they can now go to where ever they go proud that they didn’t campaign and explain themselves and let some right wing scum be appointed to fill their positions.
God I hate liberals some times.
You are correct that the judges are appointed but they do face a retention vote every so many years. These 3 judges did indeed ‘campaign”, but unfortunately it was too little too late. The Chief Justice herself debated, spoke to many groups and wrote many articles for the paper.
Ironically, the Republican Iowans elected governor is the same guy who appointed 2 of the judges who were ousted. My question is why can’t the out going Democratic Gov. just hurry and appoint 3 new judges before he leaves in January? (What if he re-appoints the 3 recently ousted judges? What has he got to lose?)
The bottom line is you have some political views about some fringe human activity and you are unhappy with democracy and wish to curtail it as it might be applied to your fringe political beliefs.
In fact, you want your fringe beliefs to be protected from democracy and enforced against the majority’s approach to morality.
You’re no better than Bush and his fascist cabal’s anti-democratic activites, just for different reasons.
“You’re no better than Bush and his fascist cabal’s anti-democratic activites, just for different reasons.”
Yes, because starting wars in which hundreds of thousands of people are killed and maimed is exactly the same as allowing people who love each other to get married.
Dear Vince Whirlwind,
Freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination is one of the founding tenets of our civilization. How can we be expected to progress if we cannot recognize new ideas? How can we reject other human beings and their pursuit of happiness simply because they don’t like women in the same way as you do? These are American citizens who simply want to be happy with those they love and you hate them for it.
Are you concerned that your own masculinity is being attacked in some way? Is there any way that your own life is affected just because two chicks or two dudes decide to bang behind closed doors? I’m more concerned with your arrogance that you believe that you should have a say in what other people do in their private lives. I am more concerned that you are so conceited as to determine who the law should protect and who it shouldn’t.
The constitution protects freedom of expression. There are laws about equal opportunity, regardless of race, national origin, color, or creed. Is your opinion so worthy of attention that we should deny people their basic human rights? Are you so fearful about the unknown that you must seek to control it with any tools at your disposal? I suppose that if you didn’t understand how a car works, you would want to outlaw driving as well?
You stand against the America and the American Dream. You are part of a cycle of hate that keeps us in the dark ages and stifles progress. I hope that someday you can reevaluate your life and your perceptions of the world. You will excuse me if I don’t see your point of view that having checks and balances that simply disagree with your opinion or your perception of popular opinion is somehow “fascist”.