Conference turris::womannotes-v1

< Note 377.1 by VINO::EVANS >
                            -< I'm in tears, too! >-

	So am I. I don't suppose Reagan will nominate even a moderate if
	Bork (or whatever his name is) doesn't get approved. I read in a 
	magazine article that throughout our history it has happened that
	liberal prezs have had conservative courts and conservatives have
	had moderate or liberal courts. maybe this means the next prez will
	be a liberal. liesl
    

    
    judges....all judges...
    should recieve their position from voting by the people...
    not by appointment.
    
    i don't care how it was done in the past.
    i don't care what the "law" says....
    
    it's wrong.
    it's unfair.
    it needs to be changed.
    
    i wonder how many judges would have been judges if the people had
    a right to make the choice?
    
    how free can we be?

    how fair can our system be...when we have no right at all to any
    decision regarding appointment of judges?
    
    if 1 person (man?) has the power to appoint judges....will she/he
    not invariably just select an extension of her/himself?
    
    before a judge is appointed he is interviewed by the president.
    the president proceeds to ask questions and look for answer that
    please HIM..! When she/he (always a he....dam) has find one that
    is a virtual clone of him/her self.....voila!....that's the choice!
    
    reagan (in this case) might just as well not bother to appoint anyone
    at all (and save us big $$$$) and then just vote in that slot....
    or those slots....
    
    just another example of america...of the bureaucracy, by the
    bureaucracy and for the bureaucracy.
    
    
    and, when you reply to this...please don't tell me how bad it is
    anyplace else...
    please don't tell me to go live someplace else...
    
    my point is....it's a problem that needs to be addressed....
    and fixed.
    
    

    
�    judges....all judges...
�    should recieve their position from voting by the people...
�    not by appointment.

     I absolutely, categorically disagree. Judges should be immune from
     the
     influence of public opinion (though it should be possible for elected
     officials to remove an incompetant judge).
     
     Sometime ago Britain repealed the death penalty and there were moves
     for a reforendum on the subject. A senior judge was asked if he thought
     a reforendum would be in favour of bringing back the death penalty
     and he replied "certainly, the people would vote for drawing and
     quartering too if allowed to".
     
     Virtually no case, certainly no scandalous case, is fully reported
     in the press and on TV. The jury hear all the evidence. The press here
     most if not all the evidence. The public see at best 1% of the evidence
     and only the more sensational parts of the lawyers and judges comments.
     
     Without being aware of all the facts of all a judges judgements, the
     public are absolutely unqualified and incompetant to select a judge.
     
     They should select political office holders, and they should select
     the judges. Alternatively judges should be selected by civil service
     style methods (ie have an exam: the highest ranking person on the waiting
     list gets the next vacancy).
     
     I repeat it should most definately not be subject to the fickle whim
     of a largely uninformed public.
     
     /. Ian .\

    in re elected judges....
    
    Rose Bird was an elected judge in California. To *way* over
    simplify the story she got voted out of office as a result
    of her strong stand against capital punishment. 
    
    premise:
    
    Judges who are elected will either move with the whims of the
    people or be voted out if they take a strong but unpopular stance.

    Bonnie

    All nominees to SCOTUS must stand before a committee of
    Congress for approval by YOUR elected representatives.   
    
    .3  Did you vote ?  Have you contacted your Congresscritter
    to urge/oppose the nomination of Judge Bork ?

    
    I have to agree with Ian on this one.  Considering the amount of
    pissing and moaning we do about the legislators and executives the
    people have seen fit to bring to office, I can't believe it would
    be good to immerse the judiciary in the mire as well.
    
    DFW

< Note 377.5 by STUBBI::B_REINKE "where the side walk ends" >
                           -< Appointed vs elected >-

>    in re elected judges....
>    
>    Rose Bird was an elected judge in California. To *way* over
>    simplify the story she got voted out of office as a result
>    of her strong stand against capital punishment. 

    A detail:  If  I  remember correctly, Judge Bird was appointed, but
    then  voted  out  of  office by a recall election. It only takes a
    majority  to recall a judge, and what's worse, people can campaign
    against  a  judge,  but  she can't defend herself by commenting on
    cases that she's ruled on.

    I certainly  agree  with  you  and  Ian  on  the  desireability of
    appointing judges.

--David

    judges (esp supreme court justices) are appointed because at the time
    of the writing of the consititution, there was experience with judges
    being dumped, or losing salary, for unfavorable rulings. Is that any
    way to run a government?

    
    How about this:
    
    Any decision of the Supreme Court may be submitted for a national
    referendum by the voting population of each state  and shall be 
    defeated only by a 2/3 majority. (The wording may have to be worked
    on.)
    
    Seems like this would close the loop of the balance of powers by
    making the decisions of the Supreme Court "ammendable" by the people.
    
    Any takers?

    
    Not until a majority of the American people can read the Constitution,
    at the very least.
    
    DFW

    A majority *can*. But they're too busy watching TV.

    
    Really?  If that's true, I'm pleasantly surprised, and wondering
    how long it will last.
    
    DFW

    Rose Bird was originally appointed, but *was* confirmed by a vote
    of the people. She was not recalled, she merely failed of
    reconfirmation, as did two other justices up for confirmation at
    the same time.
    
    This is PRECISELY why I oppose "electing" judges. The people will
    vote themselves bread and circuses. I want judges who can concentrate
    on dispensing justice, not pleasing a fickle populace. I don't want
    media stars (excuse me, "photogenic personalities") ruling on
    Constitutional Law. I don't care whether it's my state constitution
    or the federal consitution.
    
    By the way, I think the electoral college was a GREAT idea, I just
    wish it was used in the manner that was intended.
    
    	-- Charles
    
    P.S. Literacy in the U.S. is over 90%, but that doesn't mean that everyone
    who CAN read the Constitution has, or understands it, or believes
    its importance. Besides, granting franchise based on literacy is
    unconstitutional... :-) (and a bad idea)

    Usta be they taught stuff like the constitution in the public schools.
    And one pretty much had to learn something about it. Probably too
    much computer science to worry about it now, tho' :-).
    
    RE: media stars on the bench. (JUDICIAL bench, not next-up-to-bat
    bench :-))
    
    An actor in the White House is about all I  can cope with.
    
    Dawn
    

    Just for the record, California supreme court justices are appointed
    by the governor (to fill vacancies), and confirmed by popular vote.
    California supreme court justices are not "elected" but they can be
    "de-appointed" (fail of confirmation).
    
    This isn't nearly as bad as electing judges, or having popular review
    of decisions, but it still makes justices too vulnerable to "the hot
    topic of the moment".
    
    The situation at the federal level is analgous to the situation in
    CA, but the confirmation is only once, and it's by Congress and not
    directly by the people. I'm afraid though, that confirmation of supreme
    court justices has become just another bargaining chip in the complex
    dance that the White House and Congress play with each other. I wish
    Congress rejected more justices...
    
    	-- Charles