Social not political

[dr greg]

OK, question for the citizens of the USA: I've watched innumerable movies over the years where the characters talk about the 'DA' and Judges getting 'elected'...pardon my ignorance, but does that mean by the public? Under our system all such public figures are appointed and are deemed to be above politics, so unless our nomenclature and job descriptions are vastly different, how does the judiciary remain truly independent if they have to pander to public influence and attitudes? There are always outcries here of course about judicial decisions, but in the end, the politicians can only make laws, and no matter how much public anger there may be, they can't enforce them...and they are not supposed to.
just wondering....

 

[Selvaggio]

Obviously, the Americans will fill us in, but I have often wondered that as well.

Though I think it is the DA, not the judges, which is elected. So that would be the equivalent of our Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Quite a different concept really, as our DPP are not only not elected, but hey have a form of tenure and are, yes, supposed to perform their function independently of the populace and their political reps. It is supposed to stop the mob baying for blood kind of approach to prosecution decisions.

 

[Geesie]

No, there are many places in the US that have actual elected judges.

 

[PrairieSunrise]

Many of our judges are elected. Some states elect DA's other appoint them.

 

[Selvaggio]

No, there are many places in the US that have actual elected judges.

I guess on one level it is more democratic (literally) - but I am not sure that is a good thing.

Our politicians appoint our judiciary, which sounds scary, but it kind of works because strong convention mitigates against many overtly political appointments. The profession plays an advisory role - which ensures merit (or helps). What political appointments there are tend to cancel each other out over time - at any given point in time there will tend to be a mix of progressives and conservatives on the bench.

 

[Miss Crisplock]

I guess on one level it is more democratic (literally) - but I am not sure that is a good thing.

Our politicians appoint our judiciary, which sounds scary, but it kind of works because strong convention mitigates against many overtly political appointments. The profession plays an advisory role - which ensures merit (or helps). What political appointments there are tend to cancel each other out over time - at any given point in time there will tend to be a mix of progressives and conservatives on the bench.

Most judges are elected, but some such as supreme court justices are appointed. I figure they are the ones to worry about; they owe their jobs to politicians.

Any one elected can be thrown out in the next election.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Most judges are elected, but some such as supreme court justices are appointed. I figure they are the ones to worry about; they owe their jobs to politicians.

Any one elected can be thrown out in the next election.

Although through the Supreme Court justice confirmation hearings, there is at least some oversight (I guess it does represent an election of sorts; a bit like election of a bishop for the Anglicans), whereby the truly absurd candidates can be weeded out. This prevents an overly political appointment (although they are increasingly overtly political) in most cases. The president would really need a whopping majority to drive someone really distasteful through. Everyone has skeletons in their closets, and things which can be intentionally misinterpreted by politicians and "commentators"/"analysts" but very few people are put forward who are truly incapable. There was one just a few years ago, and guess what? Nomination Withdrawn.

(And given the notoriously unpredictable nature of Supreme Court judges there seems little point in putting forward someone the President thinks will swing his way. They're just too independent, and that's how it should be.)



Yes, a judge elected by the people is a disturbing phenomenon to witness.

bk

 

[Tomasso]

At the federal level judges are appointed. At the state level it varies, with some states appointing and some electing, depending on their particular state constitution. In many respects America is like 50 different countries cobbled together in a rather haphazard manner.

 

[JimWagner]

In practice (at least in this state) seated judges are mostly reelected. It's not like the public is actually tracking the judicial decisions and putting lenient judges in office. In fact, the bias is towards tough judges. About the only thing that will remove a judge is improper judicial conduct. So it's not the popularity contest that Europeans seem to think it is. More like apathy.

From my perspective having only appointed judges stacks the deck in the state's favor and weakens the checks and balances inherent in our system. Unless an appointed judge is appointed for life I'd think he'd be hesitant to decide against the state.

We can all be thankful that there is no perfect system. Think about that.

 

[Tango Yankee]

(And given the notoriously unpredictable nature of Supreme Court judges there seems little point in putting forward someone the President thinks will swing his way. They're just too independent, and that's how it should be.)

Yes, a judge elected by the people is a disturbing phenomenon to witness.

bk

Sadly, I think that the unpredictable nature of the Supreme Court is waning. I believe that the vetting process by the party of whichever party is in the White House is becoming more and more sophisticated (though the human factor can still stick a wrench in things.) Unfortunately, the whole selection process is predicated primarily upon politics. You can usually guess which way a decision is going to go based upon which side has a majority in the court although, unlike Congress, they seem to still have the capability of working together. Fortunately, precedence often is a big factor though it was obviously ignored in their latest major decision.

Sadly, an elected Supreme Court probably wouldn't be much better. The local judges here in Ohio are elected. Since my arrival I've found that, in my area at least, there's not a lot of information available about the candidates other then the fact that they're running for the position. I think that for a lot of voters the act of choosing which candidate to vote for may simply be random as they probably only know the names by seeing them on yard signs.

Regards,
Tom

 

[Mr. Paladin]

In Texas, we elect all of our judges (except municipal judges who only hear traffic tickets), to include the Justices of the State Supreme Court (which exclusively hears appeals in civil cases) and the Court of Criminal Appeals (which hears only criminal appeals). At least in my experience, people look at the backgrounds and qualifications of attorneys running for judgeships, and make informed decisions on them. After serving the four year term, the people in the area (precinct, county, state district, state district court of appeals circuit, and statewide) then look to see what the judges have done in terms of cases moved, sentences imposed, monies expended, etc. and determine whether they want them to continue in the position for another term. This local selection allows the issues most important to the people in the area to determine the effectiveness of the judge. The system works well here and I have seen it in action for the 33 years I have been a police officer. I would hate to have politicians select the judges because that would become a pure political party circus. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to fill a County Judgeship with a version of the confirmation process used at the Federal level being applied to every judge position in the state. This election process also prevents the political party in power in the state from placing their cronies into judgeships. Early voting in Texas is ongoing now and I have just voted for seven county judges (six criminal & one civil), two state disctrict judges (criminal), one place on the State Supreme Court, and several places on the Court of Criminal Appeals. Electing our judges is very popular in Texas and the Legislature would be lynched if they seriously tried to take the elections out and appoint judges themselves.

 

[Foofoogal]

Yes, moved from Texas to Arkansas in Oct. 08 and a judge recording woke me up this morning from Texas trying to get me to vote for them.
They need to update their list.
I am an avid voter but cannot. I don't think anyway. I still own land there. Anyone know?

 

[Carlisle Blues]

Yes, moved from Texas to Arkansas in Oct. 08 and a judge recording woke me up this morning from Texas trying to get me to vote for them.
They need to update their list.
I am an avid voter but cannot. I don't think anyway. I still own land there. Anyone know?

I believe it depends upon where you declare your residency or domicile and to whom your pay income taxes. However, check with your local board of elections or municipality.

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

Federal judges are appointed and have lifetime tenure which is supposed to mitigate the political aspects of the judiciary. Judges are nominated by the U.S. President and approved by the Senate. (U.S. Constitution Article II sec. 2) I think the rationale for lifetime tenure is that the judge is not beholden to anyone after he is appointed since he can only lose his judgeship if he steps down or is impeached. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/10/lazarus.federal.judges/index.html) [Article discusses the pros and cons of lifetime tenure]An example is Earl Warren. He was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States by a Republican President and his bench was anything but conservative. Ideally judges should be free of political entanglements but ideals may fail in reality.
Judges are expected to hold their offices for good Behavior. (U.S. Constitution Article III. sec. 1.)
In regards to local elections for judges, there are many rules that a judge must abide with for elections. As an example, a judge cannot state his political affiliation. One detriment to elections is that a judge may lose his office because he made an unpopular ruling although it was legally correct.

Caveat: I read Justice Clarence Thomas' autobiography and the confirmation process is stringent and very political. However, everything is political to a certain degree.

 

[Chas]

This is politics. I thought politics was banned.

EDIT: I, now I see. An Aussie asking a question 'bout how it works. As a Canadian, it has no impact on me how 'Mericans handle their biz. Unless I get arrested in the USA, of course...

Canada has its own problems that way. Fortunately we have a minority conservative gov't that doesn't have enough of a majority to ram their agenda up our collective wazoos.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

^^^
Looks more like a civics lesson, but, we shall see....

 

[Carlisle Blues]

In many respects America is like 50 different countries cobbled together in a rather haphazard manner.

Hardly haphazard...in the "federated state" model each "state" forms a community which comprises the "Federated Union". That being so there is a degree of autonomy afforded each "state" by which their citizenry can more easily be served. Further it provides a more even balance of power in theory.

While the United States is the example being used here, such countries including Australia have the same "Federated State" model.

 

[Brian Sheridan]

What is really strange is that we vote for Coroner. Shouldn't that be an appointment of the District Attorney? You don't even need to be a doctor for the job. One of our county's longest running coroner was a funeral home director.

 

[anon`]

Hardly haphazard...in the "federated state" model each "state" forms a community which comprises the "Federated Union". That being so there is a degree of autonomy afforded each "state" by which their citizenry can more easily be served. Further it provides a more even balance of power in theory.

While the United States is the example being used here, such countries including Australia have the same "Federated State" model.

But when you start looking at laws enacted at the State level, it becomes very haphazard indeed. I used to be a workers' compensation claims examiner. In the US, this insurance is compulsory by federal mandate, but each State is left to determine the details, which are often radically different as one moves from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In other words, haphazard regulation and enforcement of a common policy. State tax regimes are another place where the "haphazard" aspects of a federal system of government become readily apparent.

I think that's what Tomasso meant. At least, that's what I got out of it.

 

[scotrace]

I think this question has been answered - admirably so!

We're watching this for "mission drift."

Coroner: Same deal in Ohio. Also, Sheriffs are elected. Screwy.