Full Version: Judicial Politics
I read a very good article in Business Week recently titled The Battle Over the Courts: How politics, ideology, and special interests are compromising the U.S. justice system.
The premise in the article is that by electing judges to office, we are putting the system at risk by encouraging judges to be partisan and accept contributions to get elected.
According to the article, one of the main reasons cited for allowing elections of judicial officials is as follows:
But, the following is the flip side of that coin:
Questions for debate:
1. Are partisan politics damaging our ability to be represented by impartial judges that cannot be influenced by special interests or the beliefs of the majority? Why or why not?
2. Do you believe that we should elect judges so that they can be held accountable to the people they represent, or are there already methods in place for accountability? What benefits are gained from elected judges?
3. The founding fathers clearly thought that the judicial branch should be neutral and impartial interpreters of the law, but it seems that reality is a bit different. Should we strive to uphold those founding principles or does the current partisan system work?
The premise in the article is that by electing judges to office, we are putting the system at risk by encouraging judges to be partisan and accept contributions to get elected.
QUOTE
In the 38 states where judges are elected, as opposed to appointed, it is becoming increasingly routine for judicial candidates to run attack ads, fill out questionnaires detailing their beliefs, and hit up big donors on the phone -- all things that were once considered beneath the dignity of the office. The process of installing federal judges, meanwhile, has become a tawdry affair. Liberals and conservatives bash one another with distorted accusations of racism, sexism, and religious intolerance. And last year, marking a new low point, Republican staffers for the Senate Judiciary Committee secretly infiltrated the computer files of their Democratic counterparts and reviewed thousands of confidential strategy documents.
The bottom line is that the same bitter polarization that has poisoned Presidential and congressional politics is starting to seep into the one branch of government that is supposed to be immune from it. Disregarding the unique professional culture of the judiciary, which has traditionally been valued across the ideological spectrum, special interests are increasingly turning to the courts to advance goals they can't win legislatively. So the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, frustrated in its attempts to pass meaningful state or federal tort reform, has spent an estimated $50 million on judicial races since 1998, while plaintiffs' lawyers fight back with multimillion-dollar war chests of their own. Parallel battles rage between groups fighting over issues from gay marriage to abortion to medical malpractice reform.
All the crossfire is driving away potential judges, making the partisan credentials of nominees more important than intellectual heft, putting pressure on jurists to favor contributors, eroding public respect for the bench, and little by little diminishing the ability of the courts to fulfill their constitutional role as a check on the power of the elective branches.
The bottom line is that the same bitter polarization that has poisoned Presidential and congressional politics is starting to seep into the one branch of government that is supposed to be immune from it. Disregarding the unique professional culture of the judiciary, which has traditionally been valued across the ideological spectrum, special interests are increasingly turning to the courts to advance goals they can't win legislatively. So the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, frustrated in its attempts to pass meaningful state or federal tort reform, has spent an estimated $50 million on judicial races since 1998, while plaintiffs' lawyers fight back with multimillion-dollar war chests of their own. Parallel battles rage between groups fighting over issues from gay marriage to abortion to medical malpractice reform.
All the crossfire is driving away potential judges, making the partisan credentials of nominees more important than intellectual heft, putting pressure on jurists to favor contributors, eroding public respect for the bench, and little by little diminishing the ability of the courts to fulfill their constitutional role as a check on the power of the elective branches.
According to the article, one of the main reasons cited for allowing elections of judicial officials is as follows:
QUOTE
Of course, the courts have never been entirely divorced from politics. The reason so many states allow voters to select judges, after all, is to ensure that judges are, at some level, held publicly accountable for their rulings.
But, the following is the flip side of that coin:
QUOTE
But while politics has always played a role in the courts, it has never been as influential as it is today. In a poll of 894 elected judges conducted in 2001 and 2002 by Justice at Stake Campaign, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington, 48% felt a "great deal" of pressure to raise money during election years. Asked how much influence contributions had on their decisions, 4% said "a great deal of influence," 22% said "some influence," and 20% said "just a little influence." Those statistics should scare anybody who has a case pending before these judges because the right answer is supposed to be "no influence at all," which garnered a mere 36%. The moral in these states is clear: It pays to hire a lawyer who has donated to your judge's campaign.
Questions for debate:
1. Are partisan politics damaging our ability to be represented by impartial judges that cannot be influenced by special interests or the beliefs of the majority? Why or why not?
2. Do you believe that we should elect judges so that they can be held accountable to the people they represent, or are there already methods in place for accountability? What benefits are gained from elected judges?
3. The founding fathers clearly thought that the judicial branch should be neutral and impartial interpreters of the law, but it seems that reality is a bit different. Should we strive to uphold those founding principles or does the current partisan system work?
I assume you are talking specifically here about state judges, not federal judges? Going on that assumption......
1. Are partisan politics damaging our ability to be represented by impartial judges that cannot be influenced by special interests or the beliefs of the majority? Why or why not?
When I see the term "partisan" it implies to me a party kind of thing, Demo-Rep-Lib, etc.... At least in California, judicial elections are "non-partisan" from the standpoint of a party affiliation- or they are supposed to be. But, I'd rather move on to your second question I think.
2. Do you believe that we should elect judges so that they can be held accountable to the people they represent, or are there already methods in place for accountability? What benefits are gained from elected judges?
Once again making the assumption that you are talking about state judges, not federal ones. I don't like the idea of electing judges, not one little bit. In the general population who the hell knows who's going to be a good judge? I'm pretty in tune with California politics and I sure don't know. I could tell you the names of a few Ventura and Los Angeles County Superior Court judges because I've been in their court rooms (including Lance Ito's
), but I don't have a clue about most of them. I would prefer people who have to work in that system everyday to set up some sort of method for appointing judges. Maybe the California bar working with the Governor and legislature. As far as accountability is concerned, I do think there should be a mechanism for a recall by the voters as a last resort.
3. The founding fathers clearly thought that the judicial branch should be neutral and impartial interpreters of the law, but it seems that reality is a bit different. Should we strive to uphold those founding principles or does the current partisan system work?
Well, as I said above, I don't like the idea of voting for judges, but it has worked pretty much in spite of itself I think.
1. Are partisan politics damaging our ability to be represented by impartial judges that cannot be influenced by special interests or the beliefs of the majority? Why or why not?
When I see the term "partisan" it implies to me a party kind of thing, Demo-Rep-Lib, etc.... At least in California, judicial elections are "non-partisan" from the standpoint of a party affiliation- or they are supposed to be. But, I'd rather move on to your second question I think.
2. Do you believe that we should elect judges so that they can be held accountable to the people they represent, or are there already methods in place for accountability? What benefits are gained from elected judges?
Once again making the assumption that you are talking about state judges, not federal ones. I don't like the idea of electing judges, not one little bit. In the general population who the hell knows who's going to be a good judge? I'm pretty in tune with California politics and I sure don't know. I could tell you the names of a few Ventura and Los Angeles County Superior Court judges because I've been in their court rooms (including Lance Ito's
), but I don't have a clue about most of them. I would prefer people who have to work in that system everyday to set up some sort of method for appointing judges. Maybe the California bar working with the Governor and legislature. As far as accountability is concerned, I do think there should be a mechanism for a recall by the voters as a last resort.3. The founding fathers clearly thought that the judicial branch should be neutral and impartial interpreters of the law, but it seems that reality is a bit different. Should we strive to uphold those founding principles or does the current partisan system work?
Well, as I said above, I don't like the idea of voting for judges, but it has worked pretty much in spite of itself I think.
1. Are partisan politics damaging our ability to be represented by impartial judges that cannot be influenced by special interests or the beliefs of the majority? Why or why not?
I think a little perspective is needed on the numbers you cited. In my experience (in Ohio, where judges are elected in most cases), most judges run unopposed. I'd venture to say, over half are unopposed. The ones in that half probably see "little" or "no" pressure to raise money. Even in contested elections, the race is usually lop sided. Name recognition is huge in judicial races, so money is less of an issue in those elections.
Now things are definitely getting more competitive. Elections cost a lot more money than they did even 10 years ago. Of course, then, in some elections, money will become a bigger issue.
On the other side of the equation, about 40% of judges say that contributions have an effect on their decisions. However, only 4% say that it has a "great deal of effect".
I'm torn here. Appointment of judges is automatically political. Let's say the State governors all start appointing judges in these 38 states that currently elect judges. I think we are going to have a lot more Republican leaning judges, since the majority of state governors are Republicans. In Ohio, where some judgeships can have a party affiliation, I find that most judges are Democrats. If Governor Taft could start appointed these guys, I think the entire dynamic of the executive-judicial relationship would change.
2. Do you believe that we should elect judges so that they can be held accountable to the people they represent, or are there already methods in place for accountability? What benefits are gained from elected judges?
Elected judges are more accountable to the people, no question about it. They are also easier to sway with public opinion. It is a delicate balance.
One benefit is that you won't automatically have a rubber stamp judiciary with each new executive. Since state judges do not serve life terms, each executive would largely have a judiciary that favors his point of view.
3. The founding fathers clearly thought that the judicial branch should be neutral and impartial interpreters of the law, but it seems that reality is a bit different. Should we strive to uphold those founding principles or does the current partisan system work?
I think you are confusing State judgeships with federal ones. Since federal appointments are life appointments, the appointing process makes the nominee go through a one time intense scrutiny from law makers, which is appropriate.
However, for judges that serve terms, not only will the influx a large number of appointments at once (i.e. the beginning of each new governor's term) make the scrutiny of each individual judge less, it may make it meaningless.
Holding local and state judges accountable to the people is far superior than having a huge influx of new judges every four years.
I think a little perspective is needed on the numbers you cited. In my experience (in Ohio, where judges are elected in most cases), most judges run unopposed. I'd venture to say, over half are unopposed. The ones in that half probably see "little" or "no" pressure to raise money. Even in contested elections, the race is usually lop sided. Name recognition is huge in judicial races, so money is less of an issue in those elections.
Now things are definitely getting more competitive. Elections cost a lot more money than they did even 10 years ago. Of course, then, in some elections, money will become a bigger issue.
On the other side of the equation, about 40% of judges say that contributions have an effect on their decisions. However, only 4% say that it has a "great deal of effect".
I'm torn here. Appointment of judges is automatically political. Let's say the State governors all start appointing judges in these 38 states that currently elect judges. I think we are going to have a lot more Republican leaning judges, since the majority of state governors are Republicans. In Ohio, where some judgeships can have a party affiliation, I find that most judges are Democrats. If Governor Taft could start appointed these guys, I think the entire dynamic of the executive-judicial relationship would change.
2. Do you believe that we should elect judges so that they can be held accountable to the people they represent, or are there already methods in place for accountability? What benefits are gained from elected judges?
Elected judges are more accountable to the people, no question about it. They are also easier to sway with public opinion. It is a delicate balance.
One benefit is that you won't automatically have a rubber stamp judiciary with each new executive. Since state judges do not serve life terms, each executive would largely have a judiciary that favors his point of view.
3. The founding fathers clearly thought that the judicial branch should be neutral and impartial interpreters of the law, but it seems that reality is a bit different. Should we strive to uphold those founding principles or does the current partisan system work?
I think you are confusing State judgeships with federal ones. Since federal appointments are life appointments, the appointing process makes the nominee go through a one time intense scrutiny from law makers, which is appropriate.
However, for judges that serve terms, not only will the influx a large number of appointments at once (i.e. the beginning of each new governor's term) make the scrutiny of each individual judge less, it may make it meaningless.
Holding local and state judges accountable to the people is far superior than having a huge influx of new judges every four years.
1. Are partisan politics damaging our ability to be represented by impartial judges that cannot be influenced by special interests or the beliefs of the majority? Why or why not?
Judges should not be playing partisan politics...PERIOD. They can each have their own views and interpretations but their interest should be the law and the law being upheld. Partisanship really have no place in the judicial branch. Justice is blind.
2. Do you believe that we should elect judges so that they can be held accountable to the people they represent, or are there already methods in place for accountability? What benefits are gained from elected judges?
No, i believe that holding elections for judges would increase the partisanship rather than decrease it. This is because the judges would then have to show their personal beliefs and they shouldnt do that. Judges have their own interpretations and it should stay personal.
3. The founding fathers clearly thought that the judicial branch should be neutral and impartial interpreters of the law, but it seems that reality is a bit different. Should we strive to uphold those founding principles or does the current partisan system work?
I like the founding father's POV. The law is the law and should not be taken out of context to its original purpose. That is what happened under the Jim Crow System. The 14th Amendment (believe) was supposed to protect the rights of blacks to vote. But judges were able to find loopholes in the law and skew it towards their beliefs. If judges would just look at the wordings of the law and research on the original context in which it was administered, there would not be paritsanship.
Judges should not be playing partisan politics...PERIOD. They can each have their own views and interpretations but their interest should be the law and the law being upheld. Partisanship really have no place in the judicial branch. Justice is blind.
2. Do you believe that we should elect judges so that they can be held accountable to the people they represent, or are there already methods in place for accountability? What benefits are gained from elected judges?
No, i believe that holding elections for judges would increase the partisanship rather than decrease it. This is because the judges would then have to show their personal beliefs and they shouldnt do that. Judges have their own interpretations and it should stay personal.
3. The founding fathers clearly thought that the judicial branch should be neutral and impartial interpreters of the law, but it seems that reality is a bit different. Should we strive to uphold those founding principles or does the current partisan system work?
I like the founding father's POV. The law is the law and should not be taken out of context to its original purpose. That is what happened under the Jim Crow System. The 14th Amendment (believe) was supposed to protect the rights of blacks to vote. But judges were able to find loopholes in the law and skew it towards their beliefs. If judges would just look at the wordings of the law and research on the original context in which it was administered, there would not be paritsanship.
1. Are partisan politics damaging our ability to be represented by impartial judges that cannot be influenced by special interests or the beliefs of the majority? Why or why not?
Judges are chosen from ...... hmmmmm........ attorneys. That automatically takes the word "justice" our of the Judiciary. Justice is for idealogues. Judges are more like referees who don't care about the application of Justice but rather in the way the Rules are used and enforced and the way the game is played. That said, if there were no money given to campaigning justices, our system would be the best in the world by leaps and bounds. As it stands with campaign donations clearly in the picture, our system functions only slightly more effectively than a reasonably intelligent dictatorship.
2. Do you believe that we should elect judges so that they can be held accountable to the people they represent, or are there already methods in place for accountability? What benefits are gained from elected judges?
I believe they should be appointed alternately by the major parties as one would do choosing sides in a touch football game. The Republican or Democratic captains alternate judicial choices every 8 years or so - that way there are an equal number of each party's judges on the bench at any given time.
3. The founding fathers clearly thought that the judicial branch should be neutral and impartial interpreters of the law, but it seems that reality is a bit different. Should we strive to uphold those founding principles or does the current partisan system work?
NEUTRAL? Look at this site.
Here, a homebuilding pal of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth benefactor, Bob Perry, Weekley Homes, donates megabucks to a lobbyist in order to donate to the campaign of a judge who has a case concerning Weekley Homes on his docket!
Betcha didn't think that was legal, didya?
Not only is it legal, it is standard operating procedure for major corporations to donate heavily to the campaigns of judges before whom they have cases pending! Check out the quarter million dollar contributions by major insurers to judges with the plaintiffs being able to give - you guessed it - ZERO.
The main site does some mighty good non-partisan work chasing the money trail falling from the hip pockets of judges, representatives and other officials.
That site is: http://www.tpj.org/index.jsp
Some other interesting initiatives suggested concerning greedy or dishonest judges:
http://floridajail4judges.org/
http://www.childcustodyattorney.com/newyor...51/00000102.htm
Judges are chosen from ...... hmmmmm........ attorneys. That automatically takes the word "justice" our of the Judiciary. Justice is for idealogues. Judges are more like referees who don't care about the application of Justice but rather in the way the Rules are used and enforced and the way the game is played. That said, if there were no money given to campaigning justices, our system would be the best in the world by leaps and bounds. As it stands with campaign donations clearly in the picture, our system functions only slightly more effectively than a reasonably intelligent dictatorship.
2. Do you believe that we should elect judges so that they can be held accountable to the people they represent, or are there already methods in place for accountability? What benefits are gained from elected judges?
I believe they should be appointed alternately by the major parties as one would do choosing sides in a touch football game. The Republican or Democratic captains alternate judicial choices every 8 years or so - that way there are an equal number of each party's judges on the bench at any given time.
3. The founding fathers clearly thought that the judicial branch should be neutral and impartial interpreters of the law, but it seems that reality is a bit different. Should we strive to uphold those founding principles or does the current partisan system work?
NEUTRAL? Look at this site.
Here, a homebuilding pal of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth benefactor, Bob Perry, Weekley Homes, donates megabucks to a lobbyist in order to donate to the campaign of a judge who has a case concerning Weekley Homes on his docket!
Betcha didn't think that was legal, didya?
Not only is it legal, it is standard operating procedure for major corporations to donate heavily to the campaigns of judges before whom they have cases pending! Check out the quarter million dollar contributions by major insurers to judges with the plaintiffs being able to give - you guessed it - ZERO.
The main site does some mighty good non-partisan work chasing the money trail falling from the hip pockets of judges, representatives and other officials.
That site is: http://www.tpj.org/index.jsp
Some other interesting initiatives suggested concerning greedy or dishonest judges:
http://floridajail4judges.org/
http://www.childcustodyattorney.com/newyor...51/00000102.htm
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.