Electing judges doesn’t really make sense to me. Are people supposed to dig up every court case they’ve ruled on? (Or for prospective new judges, every case they’ve represented in as a lawyer?)
(I’m in USA Btw; Does any other country even “elect” judges? Such a weird thing IMO.)
We don’t elect judges in France, it seems weird. And yes they are supposed to be neutral, even if they are supposedly left-leaning in France for some reason (I would expect the opposite actually with lawyers being on the left to protect people and judges on the right to punish).
So, you can see how they’ve made rulings on various topics. All of that is public record.
What really happens is people make lists and say “we like this judge” for various interests, or like news agencies might give an overview of what they found on rulings, etc.
IMO it is a bit weird since it makes them political, but they’re going to be political anyways, since the alternative in the US is appointing them. (See, for example, SCOTUS nomination hearings.)
SCOTUS being appointed isn’t exactly the issue. It’s the fact that only the senate can give input, and since the senate favors the right wing, its composition is biased. House has no say in this, and that’s not very balanced.
Also 9 judges is too few, easily flipped in 1 administration we saw in 2017-2021.
Technically, you can give your senator some input and tell them how to vote. They can also call in witnesses and get commentary.
The point about scotus being appointed is that it’s still a political process, they’re still doing politics.
My state provides judicial performance reports for each and every judge per judicial body. They are based on surveys responses from attorneys, peer judges/justices, jurors, witnesses, etc. They score legal ability, integrity, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, settlement performance, etc. The scores are Superior, Very Good, Satisfactory, Poor, or Unacceptable. It gets pretty in-depth. They also provide judge biographies and history.
We also look at who their supporters are, and check for headlines theyve made, as well as social media posts.
We usually have a big voting party with some cordial friends and go through the performance reports together on our mail in ballots.
Is there any chance that the judges can “buy” their survey responses? E.g. if they pay off the people taking the survey? Or is it all totally anonymous?
(I’m not American, just curious)
If you can’t find any rulings that lean one way or the other. See if you see any vote for judge whoever signs on properties that fly trump flags or had such trumpy grumpies signs in the past. Then you know not to support that judge.
I agree that there really is no way for the layman to know. The states all vary as well. Meaning something like 10 states have partisan votes (party listed next to name in ballot). About 20 have non partisan, so they don’t list the party. Many have Yes/No retaining votes without listing a replacement, just decision to keep. Then some states have policies where the judge must be confirmed by the state Senate, and others approved by their state Congress. Beyond that, I don’t remember much, it is way to much for a person to keep up with and their should be independent bodies that evaluate performance/ judgements. I don’t know a perfect way to set it up though, as corruption is everywhere.
Any backers if there are any, searching their name online to see about controversial decisions.
And then I default to replacing them. Most people vote to keep the status quo… I’d rather keep them on their toes.
