So I was watching PBS earlier and there was some sort of panel ethics discussion. The topic at hand was if electing judges was ever a good idea.
I'm firmly in the "appoint judges for life and leave them alone" camp.
What do you kids think?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Electing Judges, good or bad?
Electing Judges, good or bad?Follow
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Neither judges nor sheriffs should be elected.
Campaigning is a distraction, and the opportunities for corruption are rife.
When you say "appointed for life" do you literally mean like the Supremes, where they decide when they need to retire? Or do you mean "until a preset retirement age"? 'Cause I could make arguments for both.
Campaigning is a distraction, and the opportunities for corruption are rife.
When you say "appointed for life" do you literally mean like the Supremes, where they decide when they need to retire? Or do you mean "until a preset retirement age"? 'Cause I could make arguments for both.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Appointing judges for life can be very dangerous. Alot of judges are so embattled in their mindset that they refuse to change. As times change, there are times when the laws must change with it. Judges who may be in their seat for a long time and refuse to change can be very disastorous. I believe in appointing judges, but with time limits.
Edited, Apr 3rd 2008 12:18pm by cpcjlc
Edited, Apr 3rd 2008 12:18pm by cpcjlc
I would rather see them have a term, but other than that, appoint rather than elect.
Nexa
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
i seldom agree with either of you, but on this i think we all stand the same:
Campaigning is a distraction, and the opportunities for corruption are rife.
Campaigning is a distraction, and the opportunities for corruption are rife.
cpcjlc wrote:
Appointing judges for life can be very dangerous. Alot of judges are so embattled in their mindset that they refuse to change. As times change, there are times when the laws must change with it. Judges who may be in their seat for a long time and refuse to change can be very disastorous. I believe in appointing judges, but with time limits.
You really are this stupid, aren't you?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Slightly OT but compaigning was brought up. Do you think people running for a political office and are already in a current political office (ie. the presdential candidates) should be forced to vote on issues when they are raised. I was looking at votes that have come before congress over the past couple years and noticed the candidates have missed a lot of votes due to absence. McCain was the worst.
cpcjlc wrote:
Appointing judges for life can be very dangerous. Alot of judges are so embattled in their mindset that they refuse to change. As times change, there are times when the laws must change with it. Judges who may be in their seat for a long time and refuse to change can be very disastorous. I believe in appointing judges, but with time limits.
While I would be comfortable with term limits (or something of that nature)...I have no idea what else you're talking about here. Judges don't make or change laws...do you understand how the three branches of government work?
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Quote:
cpcjlc wrote:
Appointing judges for life can be very dangerous. Alot of judges are so embattled in their mindset that they refuse to change. As times change, there are times when the laws must change with it. Judges who may be in their seat for a long time and refuse to change can be very disastorous. I believe in appointing judges, but with time limits.
You really are this stupid, aren't you?
Appointing judges for life can be very dangerous. Alot of judges are so embattled in their mindset that they refuse to change. As times change, there are times when the laws must change with it. Judges who may be in their seat for a long time and refuse to change can be very disastorous. I believe in appointing judges, but with time limits.
You really are this stupid, aren't you?
And that was stupid how. Educate me.
Do you think people running for a political office and are already in a current political office (ie. the presdential candidates) should be forced to vote
No.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
While I would be comfortable with term limits (or something of that nature)...I have no idea what else you're talking about here. Judges don't make or change laws...do you understand how the three branches of government work?
They do have the ability to interprut (sp) laws. Those unwilling to change might say a law is unconstitutional when infact it isn't.
I would rather see them have a term, but other than that, appoint rather than elect.
I'm not so sure. It'd have to be a fairly long term. A shorter term opens issues of quid pro quo for their post judicial career.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
What do you kids think?
Are there states that elect judges?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
See Nexa's comment; but also appointing judges for a set term would increase the amount of churn and cronyism, which is exactly what appointing them is supposed to alleviate.
The whole idea of lifetime or long-term appointments of judges is to keep some overall consistency in the judicial process, removed from the corrupting influence of politics.
If every politician gets to clean house, judicially speaking, and appoint judges who see things his way and can be counted on to impose stiff sentences for his own hot-button issues, that increases the problem.
The whole idea of lifetime or long-term appointments of judges is to keep some overall consistency in the judicial process, removed from the corrupting influence of politics.
If every politician gets to clean house, judicially speaking, and appoint judges who see things his way and can be counted on to impose stiff sentences for his own hot-button issues, that increases the problem.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Are there states that elect judges?
Yup.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
I would rather see them have a term, but other than that, appoint rather than elect.
I'm not so sure. It'd have to be a fairly long term. A shorter term opens issues of quid pro quo for their post judicial career.
I agree, something like 20 years. I don't know, it's probably a personal bias on my part but the idea of indefinitely has never sat well with me. Yes, I realize everyone dies, but I'm just not so keen on the "I'll stay on my throne long after I'm senile and you can drag my corpse out" feel I get from the current set up. I also feel, perhaps erroneously since I admit I'm not the most politically savvy person every, that "forever" appointments give too much judicial influence to the executive branch.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Appointing judges is how a term-limited executive extends his influence for decades to come, whether it's the local superior court or the supreme court. Marbury vs Madison is the classic example of a Federalist judge remaining triumphant over the new party's administration. Hence, checks and balances. (See, I was awake for at least some of poly-sci at uni.)
I think appointment for life is okay. The only time the constitionality of a law is brought up is during the course of a lawsuit anyway. The executive branch has to deal with the short term operations, the legislative branch has to mess with the middle term agenda, and the judicial branch has to deal with long term trends. It works out well for everyone.
I think appointment for life is okay. The only time the constitionality of a law is brought up is during the course of a lawsuit anyway. The executive branch has to deal with the short term operations, the legislative branch has to mess with the middle term agenda, and the judicial branch has to deal with long term trends. It works out well for everyone.
I'd go even longer - 30 years, say.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
If every politician gets to clean house, judicially speaking, and appoint judges who see things his way and can be counted on to impose stiff sentences for his own hot-button issues, that increases the problem.
Agreed. How long do you think an appointment should be for. I'm thinking maybe 10 years. Goes beyond a presidents term so maybe they won't feel so "loyal" to the current administration. Or maybe 15 years? Do you guys think an administration should have the ability to reappoint a judge once the term is over?
I'm thinking maybe 10 years. Goes beyond a presidents term so maybe they won't feel so "loyal" to the current administration.
I don't think we're in danger of appointing federal judges any time soon.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
See above. I'm not crazy about lifetime appointments because so often it's difficult for people whose entire ego depends on their own brilliance and competence to admit they've lost a step mentally. (Hell, it's hard for older people to admit they shouldn't drive any more.) But I think 30 years is reasonable.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Nexa wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
I would rather see them have a term, but other than that, appoint rather than elect.
I'm not so sure. It'd have to be a fairly long term. A shorter term opens issues of quid pro quo for their post judicial career.
I agree, something like 20 years. I don't know, it's probably a personal bias on my part but the idea of indefinitely has never sat well with me. Yes, I realize everyone dies, but I'm just not so keen on the "I'll stay on my throne long after I'm senile and you can drag my corpse out" feel I get from the current set up. I also feel, perhaps erroneously since I admit I'm not the most politically savvy person every, that "forever" appointments give too much judicial influence to the executive branch.
Nexa
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Samira wrote:
See above. I'm not crazy about lifetime appointments because so often it's difficult for people whose entire ego depends on their own brilliance and competence to admit they've lost a step mentally. (Hell, it's hard for older people to admit they shouldn't drive any more.) But I think 30 years is reasonable.
Yeah, I'm sorta with you, but I guess 20 or 30 years is all kind of arbitrary in this context if you don't take into account how old they are at the time of appointment, haha.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Yeah, I thought about that; but who gets appointed at 50 or 60 if they weren't qualified before?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Yeah, I thought about that; but who gets appointed at 50 or 60 if they weren't qualified before?
Since I know almost zilch about the subject, I have no idea. What's the average age for a judge to be appointed at?
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Quote:
But I think 30 years is reasonable.
I can see how 30 years could work. But do you think it should be based on age. If an appointee was, say, 65 when appointed, would you still go thirty years. Alot of interesting questions and opinions could come from this. Is it discriminiation to appoint a 40 year old judge for thirty years but a 60 year old judge for only 10?
Recent Visitors: 281
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (281)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Electing Judges, good or bad?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC