Poll: Americans Prefer Elected Judges

New York Law Journal ^ | 8/13/02

[Behind Liberal Lines]

A poll commissioned by the American Bar Association found that three of four Americans have more confidence in judges they elect than in those who are appointed.

At the same time, nearly the same proportion expressed concern about the impact of campaign fund-raising on judges' impartiality.

The poll, which surveyed 1,040 adults from Aug. 2-5, has an error margin of plus or minus 3.1 percent. It comes as the ABA is developing a plan to counter a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling giving judge candidates more freedom to speak on controversial issues during campaigns.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

It comes as the ABA is developing a plan to counter a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling giving judge candidates more freedom to speak on controversial issues during campaigns.

No, we wouldn't want the voters to know what judges actually THINK, would we?

Much better to have the ABA tell US how to vote, right?

/sarcasm off.

[xzins]

At the same time, nearly the same proportion expressed concern about the impact of campaign fund-raising on judges' impartiality.

Can control for that with a One Term Limit and a very long term. A 16 or 20 year term should be enough for anyone to establish their independence but also allow for turnover and citizen input.

[#3Fan]

This is not a good idea. People like Bill Clinton would be judges.

[Jzen]

1. Who gives a damn about polls? A represenative republic isn't win by popular vote. Or law by popular vote.

2. I think I remember the same argument about state senators. Then along came amendment 16, then along came senate lifers, which spits in the face of the role of senators.
I wonder if those 3 out of 4 people can actually name a judge and his credentials for being a judge. And we want to trust electing judges to the people. Give me a barf bag.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

This is not a good idea. People like Bill Clinton would be judges.

People like Bill Clinton are already judges (see, eg, Ninth Circuit in California and Florida Supreme Court).

[Behind Liberal Lines]

And we want to trust electing judges to the people.

In many, if not most, states, judges ARE ALREADY elected.

[andy_card]

Judges should never be elected. The whole point of the judiciary is to protect unpopular people and causes from the tyranny of the majority. And elected politicians won't take up unpopular causes.

We elect judges, we might as well have a vigilante-based legal system. Hamilton was right. There can be an excess of democracy.

[Amore]

No, we wouldn't want the voters to know what judges actually THINK, would we?

Much better to have the ABA tell US how to vote, right?

/sarcasm off.

You've summed up the ABA's position very succinctly!

[#3Fan]

People like Bill Clinton are already judges (see, eg, Ninth Circuit in California and Florida Supreme Court).

They're biased, yes, but not criminals like Clinton.

[#3Fan]

You're exactly right.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

We elect judges, we might as well have a vigilante-based legal system. Hamilton was right. There can be an excess of democracy.

As noted previously, in many, if not most states, trial court judges (and some intermediate appellate level judges) ARE ALREADY elected.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

They're biased, yes, but not criminals like Clinton.

Sol Wachler, was the (appointed) Chief Justice of the NYS Court of Appeals. He was convicted of, basically, stalking a paramour and eventually removed from the bench.

[andy_card]

As noted previously, in many, if not most states, trial court judges (and some intermediate appellate level judges) ARE ALREADY elected.

I am well-aware of that, thank you. I think its terrible.

[#3Fan]

Sol Wachler, was the (appointed) Chief Justice of the NYS Court of Appeals. He was convicted of, basically, stalking a paramour and eventually removed from the bench.

I think that anyone who uses a little common sense can see the point I was making. My point wasn't to pick the worst judge in America and list their crimes side by side with Clinton to see who has more, my point was that I don't think a judge should go around campaigning like another Clinton promising this group he overturn this law or promising that group he'll overturn that law. We would end up with slick criminal politicians like Clinton all over the place holding judgships. Sure we have a few Clinton-like scoundrels in the judgships now, but that problem would be exponentiated by judges who were elected by majorities of the sheeple.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

I see what you are saying, but living in a state that ELECTS some judges and appoints others, I see that the better judges tend to be the elected ones and the whack jobs and crooks tend to be the appointed ones.

[#3Fan]

I see what you are saying, but living in a state that ELECTS some judges and appoints others, I see that the better judges tend to be the elected ones and the whack jobs and crooks tend to be the appointed ones.

Do they make campaign promises? It seems to me the urge to throw the law out of the window and just scratch the back of those that got you elected would be too much for a fair interpretation of the law.

[#3Fan]

Do you live in the blue part of New York State, or the red (good) part?

[Behind Liberal Lines]

A good part, but uncomfortably close to Ithaca, the City of Evil.