The Elect
Over in Wisconsin the election of a Supreme Court Justice has become a political firestorm. Normally it's the sort of thing that flies under the radar, but now, with a supposedly 4-3 conservative court, and some people hoping they'll overturn the recently passed anti-public union bill, the face-off between conservative incumbent Prosser and liberal challenger Kloppenburg has became a central battle in a nationwide clash. Kloppenburg herself has already winked and essentially indicated how she'll vote.
The unions are working this hard, and passion counts in a low turnout election. In the latest turn, former Dem Governor Patrick Lucey has switched allegiance from the well-established conservative to the liberal. I'm generally opposed to mindreading, but the reasons he gives for his conversion--that he's discovered to his regret that Prosser isn't impartial and lacks judicial temperament--insult the intelligence. I'd almost prefer a raw political statement that he's doing this for obvious partisan reasons.
Much worse for Prosser, Sarah Palin recently endorsed him. My guess is most Wisconsin citizens won't appreciate being told by Palin how to vote, and that Prosser wishes she'd mind her own business.
A while back I was talking to some relatives from Canada, and they said it's ridiculous we vote for judges in America, since their job is to follow the law, not election returns. I told them there are good and bad things about this system (and that we don't do it on the federal level)--that there's at least an argument (even if I mostly don't buy it) that judges on some level should be responsive to the public, and more important, it prevents another kind of corruption where judgeships are handed out as political favors. But when it gets unseemly like it is now in Wisconsin, it's hard to defend the system.
Overall, I'd say everything is swinging Kloppenburg's way. In a normal election, the recognizable incumbent with plenty of experience is usually an easy winner, but I'd call her the favorite now, unless conservatives can whip up some passion on their side. (On the other hand, though it may seem symbolically big, I wouldn't read too much into one small election in a state that tends to skew blue.)
posted by LAGuy @ 12:21 AM
7 Comments:
Some ads have been openly slandering Prosser, but Kloppenburg refuses to condemn them.
In the above quote, substitute the name of any two candidates in any election in the United States, and even interchange them, and they will be equally as true
The above quote is the sort of cynicism which has destroyed American politics.
Cynicism is new in American politics? I don't think electing judges makes sense, but I don't mind retention elections. The main way we make sure judges reflect public attitudes is having elected politicians appoint them. But politicians can make mistakes, and judges can change (or have fooled us regarding) their judicial temperament. In the end, judges interpret the laws, but the laws are supposed to reflect public opinion. Even constitutions can be amended and repealed. So I like there to be a way, besides impeachment for criminal activity, to remove judges who are out of sync with public attitudes. Just look at the US Ninth Circuit - how many times have they been overturned already this term?
And the real reason for this comment:
Verification Word = downsup
I'm horrified, Denver Guy. Judges swear to uphold the law, not to follow the latest passions of the public. The highest law, or course, is the Constitution, and many parts of the Bill of Rights that deal with procedure are not highly popular. The last thing you want is a judge who decides to ignore the law because he or she knows it's not popular right now.
I am not suggesting that judges should do anything but enforce the law as written. But it is naive to believe there isn't a lot of interpretation involved in judicial decision making. Otherwise how to explain thousands of split panel decisions in courts all over the country every year, and overturned decisions by higher courts.
I looked it up, in the last decade the Ninth Circuit has been overturned by the Supreme Court 148 times in 182 cases appealed to the Supreme Court, and many of these turnovers have been unanimous votes of the S.Ct. I believe both sets of judges are upholding their oaths, they just have different underlying judicial principles they are applying.
I am not in favor of electing judges. But judges with lifetime appointments have a lot of power, and judges are just human, and can be corrupted by such power. I'm not talking corruption as in bribes, which can lead to impeachment. I'm talking about judges who increasingly decide they know what the laws mean, or should mean, better than the elected legislators who passed them. When that mindset takes hold, there should be a way short of impeachment for the recall of an otherwise unaccountable judge. A reality check for judges say once a decade does not strike me as a burden on the integrity of the judicial system. In practice, those states which have retention elections only see the tiniest minority of judges ever removed, and I think that is because the mere possibility of removal is sufficient to keep the vast majority of judges who might be tempted on the straight, legally justified side of law interpretation.
Both Ohio and Wisconsin have two provisions in their constitutions for removing judges. One is an impeachment provision, the other is a simple removal provision.
Neither specifies any standards and both have a two-thirds requirement, so go figure.
SWMBCg, etc.
Post a Comment
<< Home