PDA

View Full Version : Jon Oliver; elected judges



John Smith
02-23-2015, 10:40 AM
On last night's show we were treated to an excellent segment on why elected judges are a problem; MONEY. Most states elect their judges. Big money gets friendly judges to those who donate the money to their campaigns.

The documentary "Hot Coffee" a couple of years back also did a segment on how the right wing money machines has been rigging the court system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poL7l-Uk3I8

John of Phoenix
02-23-2015, 10:47 AM
The documentary "Hot Coffee" a couple of years back also did a segment on how the right wing money machines has been rigging the court system. Damn those activist judges!

Rock on, dud(e).

Tom Montgomery
02-23-2015, 12:29 PM
The alternative is appointed judges.

And ask yourself: Appointed by whom? Partisan politicians of course.

The U.S. Supreme Court justices are not elected. They are appointed. So how is that working out for you?

Removing politics from the judicial system is a pipe dream.

Peerie Maa
02-23-2015, 12:41 PM
The alternative is appointed judges.

And ask yourself: Appointed by whom? Partisan politicians of course.

The U.S. Supreme Court justices are not elected. They are appointed. So how is that working out for you?

Removing politics from the judicial system is a pipe dream.

Nope, It can be done.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/judicial-roles/magistrates/

and

https://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/

The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) is an independent commission that selects candidates for judicial office in courts and tribunals in England and Wales, and for some tribunals whose jurisdiction extends to Scotland or Northern Ireland.
We select candidates for judicial office on merit, through fair and open competition, from the widest range of eligible candidates.
We were set up on 3 April 2006 in order to maintain and strengthen judicial independence by taking responsibility for selecting candidates for judicial office out of the hands of the Lord Chancellor and making the appointments process clearer and more accountable. Our creation was one of the major changes brought about by the Constitutional Reform Act (CRA) 2005, which also reformed the office of Lord Chancellor and established the Lord Chief Justice as head of the judiciary of England and Wales.
The JAC is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Ministry of Justice. Our aims and objectives are agreed with the Lord Chancellor and set out in our business plan (https://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/business-plan).
The Commission In accordance with the CRA, as amended by the Judicial Appointments Regulations 2013 there are fifteen Commissioners, including the Chairman. All are recruited and appointed through open competition with the exception of three judicial members who are selected either by the Judges' Council or the Tribunals' Council. Membership of the Commission is drawn from the judiciary, the legal profession, non-legally qualified judicial officer holders and the public.

Tom Montgomery
02-23-2015, 12:42 PM
That would only require amending the U.S. Constitution.

What could be simpler and easier? ;)

CWSmith
02-23-2015, 01:00 PM
There is a petition in NH to get big money out of politics. I don't think it has a prayer, but at least it's a start.

Peerie Maa
02-23-2015, 01:14 PM
That would only require amending the U.S. Constitution.

What could be simpler and easier? ;)

Well it's been done before, and back again.

Sort out the 2nd whilst you are at it. ;)

John Smith
02-23-2015, 02:43 PM
The alternative is appointed judges.

And ask yourself: Appointed by whom? Partisan politicians of course.

The U.S. Supreme Court justices are not elected. They are appointed. So how is that working out for you?

Removing politics from the judicial system is a pipe dream.

I think it's working better than electing judges works. I have often thought that no one president should nominate two justices in a row. But that gets complex. The Supremes may rule on ideology, and, these days may get vacations paid for by people who have cases pending. I guess you're right, not immune to corruption.

John Smith
02-23-2015, 02:58 PM
The bottom line here is our judges are judges for a reason. When that reason is compromised by religious beliefs or monetary contributions or gifts, it no longer functions properly.

skuthorp
02-23-2015, 03:02 PM
Here's how it's done in Aus. Bear in mind the AG is a politician, and there have, and are appointments that have been blatantly political here too.
http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/lawcouncil/images/LCA-PDF/a-z-docs/FedJudicialAppointmentsPolicy_May2010.pdf

But electing judges is not a path I'd like to see the process go down here. That makes the judge a politician with all the pressures to be populist in his decisions.

Osborne Russell
02-23-2015, 03:11 PM
That would only require amending the U.S. Constitution.

What could be simpler and easier? ;)

It couldn't be Federal obviously, but the states could each have their own commission.

==============

Oliver is doing a great job with the show.

Peerie Maa
02-23-2015, 03:33 PM
I think it's working better than electing judges works. I have often thought that no one president should nominate two justices in a row.


Can the POTUS not set up an independent commission to recommend who he nominates?

Tom Montgomery
02-23-2015, 03:45 PM
Can the POTUS not set up an independent commission to recommend who he nominates?
Sure.

But keep in mind that in the U.S. presidential candidates generally campaign on the promise to nominate people to the USSC and the Federal courts who will toe the partisan, political, ideological line that the candidate embodies.

People often vote for the POTUS based upon that promise.

Americans, by and large, LOVE simpatico, politically ideological judges. They only dislike those judges who hold political views opposite of their own.

On the local level, judges are elected in, allegedly, non-partisan contests... but the fact is each party loudly endorses and campaigns for their favorites.

John Smith
02-23-2015, 07:15 PM
I think, given the deep partisan divide, justice nominations should alternate between parties. There has to be a better way than the way we're doing it.

Gerarddm
02-24-2015, 12:38 AM
Here is possibly a proper venue for artificial intelligence, when it gets perfected.

Osborne Russell
02-24-2015, 02:29 PM
Here is possibly a proper venue for artificial intelligence, when it gets perfected.

Names out of a hat?

Captain Intrepid
02-24-2015, 02:40 PM
Can the POTUS not set up an independent commission to recommend who he nominates?

The problem with that would be getting both parties on board. I fear that would be impossible in the hyper partisan environment of modern American politics. I've long thought that the American tradition of partisan judges is one of it's larger weaknesses as a free country.