Is It Time To Elect Federal Judges?

[Lunatic Fringe]

Today, the nation lost a great candidate for the federal bench. Miguel Estrada, an inspirational example of the Immigrant's Dream of success in America, withdrew his nomination after spending two years in limbo in the U.S. Senate. Democrats used a fake filibuster SEVENTEEN times to block his nomination, while Republicans sat back and whines incessantly about how it was unfair.

The GOP had the chance to get Estrada on the bench. Quite honestly, I don't blame him for withdrawing his name. How would you like it if you were hired for a dream job, and had to wait two years for Human Resources to process your paperwork before you started? No, thanks, Senator Frist.

Someday soon, this is going to be a Supreme Court appointee. This skirmish was the opening salvo of the upcoming war for control of the Supreme Court, and the GOP took a bloody nose in the fight. They fail to realize that they have the power to stop the filibuster in two manners. First, they can change the Senate rules to require only a majority vote to bring up a full floor vote on Estrada. Despite the heavy sighs from egg-head political science professors at Harvard, the Senate is fully in its right to do just that and is backed up by Supreme Court and historical precedents that date back to the British Parliament. Their second option is to require a real filibuster, which would be guaranteed to collapse on the first Friday, precisely at 3:00pm. Nobody in Congress has the will to give up their weekend plane tickets over one federal judge.

But, alas the Republican MAJORITY in the Senate merely grumbled and shrugged. There was nothing they could do. It was a partisan blockage of a well-qualified judge. Politics.

At one time, these Senators were appointed by state legislatures. This was the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Somewhere along the line, that was changed. The 17th Amendment gave the people the right to choose their Senators by popular vote.

Federal judges have wielded tremendous power over the past century. From de-segregation orders, to removal of religious symbolism, to the commuting of over 100 death sentences imposed by their peers, to overturning the will of 60% of voters in California and the declaration of the phrase "under God" as unconstitutional, federal judges have the power to radically change not laws.... but culture. They choose to interpret laws as they view them- politically. So, if they want to be political... why not make them politicians, subject to the will of the People rather than the Will of God to take them home?

Shouldn't such great power be held in check by terms of 6 years? Shouldn't such power be entrusted in them by the will of the people, to whom his or her decisions are handed down? Isn't time we start electing federal judges?

[Pukin Dog]

NO.

[winker]

All public servants must be accountable to the electors. This is the only way we the people can be heard on critical issues!

[ellery]

No, it would cause more problems than it would solve. We are a republic, not a popular democracy.

[Lunatic Fringe]

A republic is the appointment of people to represent you. My proposal is not popular democracy, as the people would not be voting on each ruling.

[deport]

Lessons of the Estrada Defeat
Legal Theory Blog ^ | September 4, 2003 | Prof. Lawrence Solum


Posted on 09/04/2003 5:47 PM CDT by pogo101


Withdrawal: What Does Estrada's Decision Mean?

[9999lakes]

NO!

But it IS time to hold both Republicans and democrats responsible for this outrage.

democrats are the most responsible of course -- they did it.

But Republicans let it happen by inaction.

[ellery]

You're right -- clarification: I believe direct election of judges moves us closer to pure democracy. I'll go with the system our founders set up (heck, maybe we should go back to senatorial appointments, too:))

[DaGman]

Very bad idea. The judiciary needs to be completely separate from politics. That's the way the founders intended it to be.

[blackdog]

Are you insane?

80% of the voting public cannot name the president, VP, Secretary of defense, National security advisor, or the speaker of the house. And you want that same public as those who appoint judgeships?

Now if a test was given to vote on judicial appointments to the public on the content of the constitution, American legislative history, and American history from 1500 to 2003, requiring a 90% or better to vote, that would be different. And I think that would exclude 95% of congress too!

[Political Junkie Too]

No, it's time to STOP electing Senators and go back to appointing them. Electing judges would just further move us away from the tapestry of the Constitution (just like the 17th Amendment did) and add even more campaign cash into politics.

Just repeal the 17th Amendment and let the Senators go back to being Senators.

-PJ

[Woahhs]

Has the dynamic tension between the branches of government been circumvented?

[AndyJackson]

NO!

[Eala]

Bad idea. Our system was fairly well designed at the start, but our tinkering has only made it worse, weakening its various checks and balances to the point where it will soon collapse, or is collapsing, or has been collapsing into something very different and definitely less free than the original vision.

IMHO we need to start over, to build a new system much like the original, but utilize what we've learned since. Of course this would require a preponderance of conservatives to overcome the liberals' system of spoils, so I don't expect it ever to happen before the existing system collapses completely into anarchy.

[M Kehoe]

No, and...

...it's time to STOP electing Senators and go back to appointing them.

After all of these years, I have come to believe the Founding Fathers were much more intelligent than most of today's politicians. And most of the populace too.

Oh, and the Second amendment means what it says.

5.56mm

[Eala]

Has the dynamic tension between the branches of government been circumvented?

To a degree it has. The state legislatures are no longer represented by the senators.

[winker]

They also formed us as a Nation under the rule of law but now we are watching UN-Elected Tyrants Taking away the God given laws Jehovah intended us to be protected by. I trust the voting public more than a unanswerable mob with unlimited power. We the people must retain the power to get them out before its all gone and forgotten. We are a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC! Judges are no different than you or I with one notable exception they are given CARTE BLANCHE authority in a system that makes it all but impossible to achieve a satisfactory resolution to their treasonous acts! There is a better way to handle all Federal Judges make em go before the People not leave them an option to hide out and dodge responsibility!

[ml/nj]

Democrats used a fake filibuster SEVENTEEN times to block his nomination, while Republicans sat back and whines incessantly about how it was unfair.

Does this remind anyone else of the Senate "trial" of the Great Stainmaker?

The current Republicans are a disgrace.

ML/NJ

[4integrity]

Dims have been disgraceful but the Republicans are guilty due to their inaction. I've called Frist's office in the past and called again today to demand ACTION! I am furious at the Dims but equally furious at the Republican Senators and the Party. I see no coordinated efforts to stop the filibusters and seems like the Repubs are fighting themselves rather than the Dims. Bush better light a fire under Frist!

[DaGman]

There's been a lot of debate in recent years about the merits of electing versus appointing judges. I don't like the idea of elected judges because they become too beholden to those who contributed money to their campaign. It all becomes a matter of money.

That being said, I can live with a periodic up or down review vote on a judge by the voters. But I would not like voting for a GOP versus a Democrat judge for a federal position. The whole concept reeks of "be careful what you ask for".