Keeping in mind that I know nothing about politics…
Wednesday, 21 October 2009…my gut feeling about the fact that Wisconsin elects its judges (?!), a feeling shared by my wife and father-in-law and I imagine many other people, is that it’s bad policy.
(Via Dane101)
New York elects its state court judges, too, darlin’.
Ain’t nothin’ untoward about it.
In fact, you often see the same candidates on the slate as both Repubs and Dems!
…did you ever actually vote in this city?
Glibness aside, the public policy behind this is, of course, the same as the rationale for any election: ready ouster if the particular judge renders poor decisions, is often overturned or acts unscrupulously. Inter alia. Of course, all this assumes a level of familiarity with the judges’ tenures that you’re virtually certain not to find in any electorate! But. There it is.
@Dotty: I didn’t vote for the judges, because I don’t think I have any business voting in races where I know nothing more about the candidates than their names. But I did vote!
In the presidential elections.
OK, actually, I missed one of those. But not the important one!(The important one was 2004.)
WAIT, NO, AMENDED:
I did vote in 2004 and 2008. I missed the primary in 2008 (which was important) because I was registered as an independent. That was annoying.
Also, leaving aside the fact that I will always think twice before agreeing with anyone who doesn’t know how to spell “adamant,” this person’s… blog(?) offers absolutely no compelling reason why appointed judges are any “better” (or more trustworthy, or [insert positive adjective here]) than those who are elected. Indeed, appointed judges “owe their careers to [the] elections” of the politicians who appoint them, no?
@Dotty: I linked to it more because it reminded me that Wisconsin elected judges than because of the argument.
But no, I don’t think appointed judges owe their careers to those politicians. Aren’t there are a fair number of judges who’ve totally irritated the governor or president who appointed them by making decisions the politician doesn’t agree with? And once a judge is appointed, isn’t he or she more or less not beholden to the politician, as removal is much more difficult than the giving of the job?
Well. Perhaps not “beholden” to the politician the same way elected judges are “beholden” to the public. But then, isn’t that missing the point somewhat? Seems the argument made by blogthing (which I recognize you’re not necessarily advancing, I just haven’t seen any other to which to respond) is that it is the political process itself — i.e., the campaigning — that corrupts the judges. In an appointment situation, however, the judge must also “campaign” to be confirmed by the very politicians whose lifeblood is that very same campaigning! In other words, the level of political involvement required of judges in both situations is merely two sides of the same coin.
As an anecdote, I would say I know many more federal (i.e., appointed) judges than I know state judges. All those guys, though, still had to “play the game” in order to get where they are. So whether you’re campaigning for election, or you’re campaigning for appointment, you’re still campaigning one way or the other!
@Dotty: I dunno. That’s a reasonably fair analogy when you consider the first campaign, whether it’s a campaign to get voters to elect you or a politician to appoint you (although I suspect that in practice, you hew a lot closer to your true self when you just have one guy and a few of his people to convince than a whole constituency).
But doesn’t it become wildly divergent after that? There’s something unpalatable to me about a judge who has to go out and campaign every six or eight years. And something disturbingly vulnerable about a judge whose present decisions could be influenced by the fact that he or she has to campaign to keep his or her job in the near future.
Same here in North Dakota. Didn’t you ever vote here? J Garaas had the distinction of being one of only two candidate’s signs we ever allowed in our front yard. Uncle B was the other (but I didn’t like it!).
@Mom: I have never voted in North Dakota. I feel like that’s in keeping with the state’s libertarian sensibility.
Aw, I thought you had forsaken this thread, darlin’! (Hi, Josh’s Mom!!)
I actually don’t think it gets divergent, hon. I mean, maybe from the standpoint that you don’t have to keep “campaigning”… But! You’ve still got appellate courts that are “keeping you honest.” Unless you’re a Supreme. (And speaking of which, the latest Sotomayer circus should set you straight about “a few of his people to worry about,” when talking about confirmation hearings.)
I mean, sure, yeah. I don’t know a whole helluva lot about politics as it pertains to actually getting down and dirty and actually gladhanding. (Though it does strike me as diiiiiiiirty!) But I do know a little bit about judges. And about judicial censure committees. (Though not too much.) And about appellate review. (A bit more, there!)
At bottom, I think it’s just pretty much a red herring argument to bemoan elected judges. Truth be told, I’m inclined to believe the community of lawyers themselves (I know!) is enough of a restraining force to keep the most deplorable among us from actually running for the bench.
@Josh: Yes, it’s true we have common sense by the cart-ful. But I agree with Dotty (Hi there!), electing judges has worked very well in North Dakota and most likely does in Wisconsin, you betcha!
Well, both of you should keep in mind that I know quite a bit about politics.
And also that I will always think twice before agreeing with anyone who doesn’t know how to spell “Sotomayor.”*
(OHHHH! BURN! OHHHH!)
*But seriously, I’m not sure she’s actually a very good example for you to cite, because everyone pretty much agreed even well before the hearings that the Republicans would make a fuss over her, but that, ultimately, she would be confirmed. Technically, there were people to worry about, but my recollection is that no one was actually particularly worried.
Ouch!! I feel truly and goodly burnt. That was a goodly amount of burntitude.
Need I mention that I had been drinking when I wrote that? No. No, I think not.
And the reason to bring her up is actually BECAUSE of the whole agreed-uponedness! Even with that certitude, she still had to cowtow (somewhat) to the politics of the situation.
If you’d prefer, though, we could talk about Harriet Miers. You think she didn’t spend her entire career campaigning?
ALSO, I KNOW HOW TO SPELL SNUGGIE!
BUT NOT “KOWTOW,” APPARENTLY!
Heee! Okay, that one I actually didn’t know in advance. And I’m not even drinking!
Guilty.