Comments on: Judicial elections and the New York Times

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:02:46 +0000

“hyper-originality”

as in “Enshrined in the US Constitution for both federal judges and US Senators”

(Unfortunately, there’s that silly amendment that changed Senators to being elected…)

By: David Wilson

David Wilson — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:48:25 +0000

Hold on for some hyper-originality:

Depoliticize judicial elections by having either the state legislature or the governor appoint them. That is, ixnay the elections. The process would still be “politicized,” since governors and legislatures are, too, but more attenuated than the grosser spectacle of direct appeals for votes and the need to raise campaign cash.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:34:03 +0000

“bought off”

Sure, you could make the case that the judges following the law were bought off… to follow the law.

That is, they are taking extra money (in the form of campaign donations) to actually do their job.

That’s a pretty nice racket, made possible by years of judges NOT doing their jobs and not being fird for it.

By: J.T. Wenting

J.T. Wenting — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 23:48:09 +0000

And that’s why our judges aren’t elected but appointed.
It’s a job like any other, you apply for it and get selected (or not) by the responsible people.

By: Jake

Jake — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 20:42:01 +0000

But who gives a damn anymore about what the NYTimes has to say?

A review of a play or movie, perhaps, but any more serious matter?

By: Ted

Ted — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:38:26 +0000

Whenever a judge who accepts money from the trial bar rules for a plaintiff, that judge is bought off. I never made this contention. Lane's repeated refusal to address what is actually said is happening too often to be merely coincidence. However, the four judges who ruled for Ford in Maitland were following the law. The three dissenters were not. (Note how Lane makes no attempt to defend the dissent. Nor can he do so honestly.) Yet, the Times's investigation focuses on disparaging the judges who were following the law.

By: Justinian Lane

Justinian Lane — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:13:08 +0000

Whenever a judge who accepts money from the trial bar rules for a plaintiff, that judge is bought off. But when a judge who accepts money from corporate interests rules for a corporation, that judge is "following the law." Interesting.

Sarcasm aside, I do have a question for you: Do you have any suggestions on how to depoliticize judicial elections? Each cycle, they seem to get more and more heated and more and more costly. Is there a way to scale them back, or are things just going to get worse?