Electing Judges vs Appointing Them

[guywithashovel]

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live...litics&sid=101

The Chief Justice of my state's supreme court wants to change the way justices are selected in the state. Right now, they are elected. He wants to change it so that the governor will appoint justices rather than having them popularly elected. He says that campaign contributions during elections influence justices' votes on cases.

Which way do you think is better?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Elections open the door wide open to potentially negative influence. Appointment, is a tool by which the whoever appoints said judges can exercise bias. So both have pitfalls. IMO appointment is just a smidge better, as it's more distanced from popular opinion, the better to neutrally view the law...

[HYHYBT]

Oh, definitely appointments. There are no guarantees either way, but at least with appointed judges you don't have to worry about them making decisions based on what's more likely to get them reelected. Besides, so many of them run unopposed anyway.

The biggest problem I see with appointments is that, in the federal court system at least, it's entirely too easy to block or hold nominees indefinitely, for the sole reason that the person appointing them is of the other party. And yes, I hate this regardless of which party is which. It ought to be set up some way so that appointments must be acted on within a certain, short period of time and can only be denied for cause.

[elsporko]

I think elections are fine. A family friend is a judge and he's said before that alot of the people he has sentenced have told him he was fair to them. I think if a judge is fair it gets recognized by the criminals. If a judge is unfair they shouldn't be in that position. The trouble with appointments is that the governor can't pay attention to all the judges to see who is fair and who is unfair. The judge in my current home county was arrested for drunk driving and trying to run from the police, but its pretty much getting swept under the rug. The governor might over look that when it came time to review his appointment but its pretty obvious that he is going to get his but whipped in the elections coming up.

[lordlundar]

Appointment, but not for the same reason that's listed. If a defendant has a judge that he doesn't want, all he has to do is declare that he's running against them in the next election. By law, the judge must recuse themselves from the case. Once the judge is off the case, drop the declaration and you can use it for the next judge until you get one you want.

And yes, this incident has happened. Florida to be exact with the gaming community's laughing target, John Bruce "Jack" Thompson.

[Tanasi]

Most of our local judges are elected and I have no problem with that. The state judges are appointed by the governor and either confirmed or denied by the state senate for 4 or 6 year terms. Before the term is up during governor elections we vote whether to retain the judge or not. As far as I know none have been thrown out.
I think elected judges have to convey more common sense than appointed and they rarely become activists.