Electing Judges, good or bad?Follow

Dunno! I'm sure it's younger for state and local judges than federal; but that's not really an answer.

Maybe "30 years or until X age, whichever comes first"?

So basically a term limit AND a mandatory retirement age. That would be reasonable I think. I'd even just be fine with the retirment age, actually, but I'm a little afraid that that would lead to appointing younger and younger judges...I realize I'm too skeptical and paranoid.

Nexa

Lifetime appointment, with some sort of mental capability test done at a rather old age that allows them to continue on for another 5 year interval. Say, 65 or 70 as that starting point. I just want to make sure they're still mentally healthy. We appoint Senators (they're useless) up north for life I believe and some of those old bastards are beyond senile.

Edited, Apr 3rd 2008 2:08pm by Uglysasquatch

Mental capability test can open a can of worms though. People claiming discrimination b/c so and so is older than I am but he is still a judge and you don't like me b/c (insert reason here). I think a mandatory retirement age would be better suited to decrease claims such as this.

Appointed for a term. I'm more politically educated than the average bear and I still don't know who the fuck half the people on the judge ballot are. Off the cuff, I'd assume 99% of them are elected either on the strength of their party, their gender or their name and not based on how qualified they are to be a judge.

Lengthier terms as you get up the ladder of local vs state vs federal.

I like to ignore them and squash them under my boot. But I'm used to that, I'm in the white male majority.

so i would allow a peer group reconmendation of removal from the bench if required.

Meh. I'd really want it to be awfully hard to remove a judge.

The UK system requires experienced lawyers to pass rigorous Bar exams before being appointed Queen's Counsel. This involves peer sponsorship before Government appointment by an all party group to dilute the risk of overtly political appointments. (And they are accountable to Her Maj via Parliament, not the party in power).

My main misgiving is that many QCs practice into their 80s and their rulings often become completely out of touch (Various "What is this 'internet' of which you speak?" jokes).

Life appointment with a requirement for peer sponsorship and mandatory retirement at 65 or 70 IMHO.

The Last thing I'd advocate (pun intended) would be to allow public elections of the judiciary.

So whats the concensus. If it had to be put to a vote right now, how would you vote? (meaning all the contributing posters).

I agree with Smash, Nobby and the other clever posters.

But, for argument's sake, electing judges could be ok if done properly. If you had an educated electorate, if judges were elected purely for their feat in legal interpretation, and if the funding was done by the state, then it could work. If we trust people with electing some twats to make our laws, then we should trust them with electing some twats to interpret them.

I can think of maybe 2 countries were that could work.

If the average joe were more politically savvy and concerned, ideally I'd opt for elected judges. Moot point though. The vast majority of the population takes the judiciary branch for granite.

I'm not especially keen on executive-appointed judges either. It becomes a crapshoot of what kind of executive is in office when it comes time to appoint a new judge.

Lifetime appointment-- no, not without some process for evaluating and consequential terminating of the justice. I would propose a popular elect out of office, but that's unprecedented and for all intensive purposes, unworkable. How would you vote someone incompetent out without having someone to replace them with? Then it comes back to the same issue of how candidates are appointed/elected.

Realistically, appointed long-term judges would be my preference. In a world where people were more politically active, maybe a minimum number of qualified candidates could be appointed to vote on.

By the way, those are inside jokes (used tastelessly outside the circle of people who would actually get them). I'm not really that retarded, if you can believe it.

This is where I trounce you soundly for only mentioning males as being "clever".