The Case Against Judicial Elections: Keep Politics Out of the Law

The author forgets about accountability in his discussion. The push for elections is driven by judges that step way out of their role and legislate from the bench and become their own little oligarchy that dictates their own policy preferences like a member of Congress. Out-of-control judges at all levels bring this on themselves by a frustrated electorate attempting to rein in liberal activist judges who refuse to interpret the law rather than making it up. The author likes the result so he likes these judges, ie abortion, homosexuality, and other social decisions, but if he disagreed, he would be the first to want to elect them.

As a longtime lawyer (way too long!) who practiced in both state and federal courts for many years before becoming a law professor, I have seen the negative impact of an elected judiciary. Of course, there are politics in political appointments but , no contest, I believe the appointive method results in far more more qualified judges.

We need to re-think the Judiciary in this country. While we are a country of Law, Laws in an of themselves are not the ultimate accomplishment. JUSTICE
is the key work not Law. It is JUSTICE under Law. When we politicize the process in favor of intrepration of Law, we forfeit the ability of our Judges
to Champion Law.

The premise of this article seems to be that if judges are not elected, they will be free from political considerations. That may have been what the framers had in mind when hey made federal judicial appointments ones for lifetime tenure, but anyone familiar with the court system knows that that is simply not the way it works out. It is puzzling why a federal judge would, figuratively speaking, "sell" his soul to one side or the other when he has no financial reason to do so, but it happens - and that side usually happens to be on the side of the police and political conservatism and against the idea of a constitutionally restrained government. Perhaps they are concerned about their "legacy", or they were biased toward the police before they were appointed - but for whatever reason, the fact tht they are not subject to periodic elections doesn't seem to make much of a difference. I don't know what the solution is but eliminating elections isn't it. On the other side of the coin are those judges that may be popular politically, but who are simply incompetent. Which is worse - a nazi or an incompetent glad hander? Personally, I'd prefer the incompetent - perhaps less people will needlessly get hurt.

This article doesn't make a rational case either for or against judicial elections. It is grounded in opinion and not supported by any facts or comparisons of the quality of judging of one system versus another. I can get this kind of stuff from my 14 year old kid. Poor job.

"The biggest single threat to fair and neutral justice is the trend toward partisan judicial elections at the state and local level." Elitest have been trying to take your right to elect your own judges away from you for years! This is just the latest justification to take away your control of your courts. Once they can control who becomes the "judge" they can decide what constitutes "fair and neutral justice" and how it's determined! Don't let them take your right to vote away!

Politics out of the law ????? @ years ago i heard two of our highest courts judges say that it was a time to make judgements that were politically correct. Strange when the took an oath to uphold the law The senate and congress were to make laws not the courts . Do you think Obama is going to put the best person on the job or appoint one that sides with him politically ? The one place that should show no politics is the court but that idea has been raped too

If the judges are not elected by the people and instead selected by "professionals", then what are those "professionals" going to be beholden to or what favors might possibly be asked of said selected judge? No system is perfect and when elections are involved then politics are involved. Furthermore; if there are those who select a judge to interpret the law, then politics always inserts its ugly head. I believe that the best that can be done in this particular situation is to educate those who would vote for the judges, meaning the people. America used to be known as having the most well educated population in the world, what happened? I have an idea, yet perhaps those who read this should think about it themselves. As an aside; I wonder if my post will pass the AOL censor test? Ah, Free Speech, wherefore art thou?

Lawyers will tell you elected judges, for one, are LESS knowledgable of the law. Generally the worst state court systems elect judges: Ohio and Texas for example. One infamous case was between Texaco and Pennzoil in TX. The two corps contributed a total of $2 mil to their judge's campaign with the eventual winner out spending the loser by $1 mil. The courts are also overworked enough that you don't want judges spending time solicting contributions and campaigning.

This seems a ploy by conservative groups to install more corrupt judges as though having a corrupt SCOTUS isn't bad enough. Contrary to myth, judicial activism is primarily a trait of conservative judges, who rely not on the law or Constitution but their immoral dogma and biases, nor do they respect other jurisdictional restraints. One can see this in the baseless rulings of the Rehnquist and present courts. It was the great liberal Justice Cardozo, who admonished courts that where a law is unambiguous that the court has little work to do but apply it. The judges are supposed to fill in ambiguous areas under legislation, making common law, that are brought before them. If the legislature doesn't like any particular aspect of common law, it is their perogative to expressly state their view thru amendment. Interestingly courts have asked Congress to correct the ERISA language that bars suits against the HMOs.