Elitist 'judicial reform' would rob people of their rights

Minneapolis Star Tribune ^ | February 8, 2008 | TOM DAHLBERG and ERICK KAARDAL

[rhema]

The Star Tribune, in its Feb. 4 editorial on judicial elections, supports the elitist ambitions of former Gov. Al Quie to take us backwards into the authoritarian appointment of judges by the elite bureaucratic class. This clearly demonstrates that the Strib editorial board, like Quie and his bevy of self-proclaimed experts, has no sense of history.

Look at how pretentious and passé the implicit and explicit arguments are for having the elites appoint our judges rather than letting the people choose.

We live in the "post-modern" era. The old-school appeal to the notion that legal judgments can be, even in principle, perspective and value neutral, should either cause us to pat Mr. Quie on the head and smile for his innocence or arrest him for truly criminal naiveté. In the latter case, an elected people's judge would send him home, recognizing that a law persecuting precious naiveté deserves to be nullified. An appointed judge would let him off because he's a crony. As neopopulists, we prefer the former.

The ugly truth about this campaign to let the elites appoint our judges is that it is an ideological will to power, invoking, inauthentically, the myths of objectivity, expertise and the greatest good, all of which the "best and the brightest" believe they have a corner on whenever it's of rhetorical use. That is, the elites are perfectly willing to exploit these absolutist myths about objective judgment when that suits their agenda, and post-modern relativism when that suits their agenda.

The people make no ideological bones about it. They, quite rightly, just want the power. When judges make decisions that transfer more and more power to the government, the people are going to throw them out.

[rhema]

Tom Dahlberg, a Shorewood resident, is chairman of the board of Neopopulism.org. Erick Kaardal, a Hamel resident, is general counsel of Neopopulism.org.

[muawiyah]

One argument overlooked is that whether a judge is "appointed" by the Executive, or a committee rather than "elected" by the people at the ballot box, the real issue is not the relative expertise of the folks doing the chosing, but the extension of the franchise.

As long as we vote directly for the members of the United States Congress it seems to me that the franchise should be extended as far as possible to the people for the election of those of lesser rank in our government.

Limiting the franchise to lawyers when all of our lives and property may be at stake seems to me to be a risk not worth taking.

[Cacique]

btt

[MNJohnnie]

Let see if I get this right. These same clowns at the Strib fought tooth and nail to keep the partisan affiliations from being know about Judge candidates now whine we “the people” have the right to elect our Judges?

OK, then we also have a right to know about their judicial philosophy and background so we can make an informed decision. Right now it is almost impossible to know anything about the Judge you are voting for. Easiest way for that information to be made know is to have party's endorse candidates for Judge