FZR1KG wrote:I think you missed my point.
The public supposedly tells the politicians what they want.
What is so different about them choosing the judge that applies that want as well?
You've missed
my point. Which is that it isn't the job of judges to do what people want. It's the job of judges to interpret and apply the law
correctly. That isn't a matter of public opinion, so votes shouldn't come into it.
What happens when there is a judge that comes in that the public don't want.
One that they actually really decide they don't want to serve in judging them for whatever reason. If they can vote, he's gone.
This makes no sense to me. It makes no sense for the public to make that determination. It doesn't even make sense for the public not to want a person to be a judge. The whole thing is an apolitical process and system.
The way I'm seeing voting for judges is that if they are all qualified technically it makes no difference who gets voted in. If it makes a difference then it's admitting that it's important to decide which judge you put in place. It also implies that judges aren't as impartial or corrupt as some would want us to believe. If it's a case of competence then why did the prospective judge qualify in law when not competent.
Right. The only reason to elect judges is if you want the judiciary to be political and you want judges to both a) represent the politics of the people who elected them and b) base their legal decisions on their political views. Which is bad.
Basically what I'm saying is that if you are qualified to be a judge then you are qualified and it makes no difference who gets in.
I agree. With the caveat that some people are better than others. You can barely meet the minimum standard, or you can soar over it.
If what you say is true they must all be impartial and held accountable then what difference is there in letting the public choose who?
The current Canadian process (appointments) is apolitical, chooses apolitical judges, and encourages apolitical rulings. The current American process (elections) is political, chooses partisan judges, and encourages political rulings.
The latter harms impartiality, since it means that judges intentionally make partisan decisions. Not only is that behaviour encouraged because that's the sort of person who gets elected,
the very process of election requires judges to be political, since that's how to please an electorate.My point is that appointed judges have incentives to be impartial and serve the law; elected judges have incentives to be partisan and serve political interest groups.
The answer is they aren't all the same, some are not trust worthy, some are not as competent, some aren't impartial.
Sure. But which selection process is more likely to result in apolitical, non-partisan, impartial judges? The political selection process that incentivizes political behaviours? Or the apolitical selection process that incentivizes impartial behaviours?
So why can't the public decide that they aren't worthy of the position?
Because elections are incapable of producing apolitical, non-partisan, impartial elected officials. Look at Congress. Look at Parliament.
This is the crux of my point:
elections select for the wrong things and are thus wholly inappropriate for selecting judicial officials.As an example, I don't need to be a lawyer not want any particular lawyer to represent me.
I don't need to be a doctor not want any particular doctor to treat me.
I don't need to be a judge to not want to be judged by any particular judge.
As in all the above, if I think someone has been wronged, I can go get another person, likewise with a judge. What's wrong with the idea that I can make sure of that by my vote.
Again, no. For the reasons above. You
want an impartial judge. Elections are unlikely to produce one because of the implicit incentive structures built into them.
Probably didn't come out right because I'm freaking exhausted. So off to bed I go and I won't be back for a couple of days. Boat shift starts at 6am tomorrow...
No, I understand you. I just don't think you understood me.
