walrusjester inspires again

[ng_nighthawk]

Judicial retention elections. Wha?

Yes, this is comment-bait for goobermunch. I'm not ashamed of that. But others should please include their responses to my statement: judicial retention elections are dumb.

Comments

[srotu27]

Agreed that voters are ill-equipped to make this decision, but would a random sample of lawyers likely to be less political? They've got actual self-interest to a greater degree than your average voter. And isn't sending it to retired judges likely to perpetuate an old boys club, in which existing judges were forced to curry favor with past office-holders? Maybe I watch too many movies, but I think the proposals you've got are no less political (though admittedly better informed) than the existing structure.

Why are we talking about this the day after the elections? Won't there be another damn election cycle soon enough? No rest for the wicked--- are we sure?

[ng_nighthawk]

My thinking on this is grounded in the idea that kicking out a judge will be a relatively rare thing... 5 in 10 years would be a lot. The nomination process doesn't change, just the idea of how judges get reviewed. The old boys club would have two potential negatives: long-time friends of the judges who remind them of themselves will get more credit than they should, and new, innovative judges will get more scrutiny than they should. But if we restrict the retired judge pool to just folks who didn't get kicked out, it seems to me this is actually a good thing, not a bad one.

The next time I come into your office with a gun and force you to click a link to one of my posts, I'll try not to worry a tired topic. :D Thanks for being so obliging and respectful, though--you'd be surprised how many people yell at me when I force them to do things at gunpoint.

[srotu27]

I know you neither forced me to read it nor to comment on it, I'm just not a fan of election stuff, and I had to throw that into my comment on principle.

[ng_nighthawk]

And thank you for doing both. :) I appreciate your thinking, in general.

[drdeleto]

I don't necessarily disagree, but some here are some pot-stirring questions:

1. Do judicial retention elections politicize the judiciary, or are they a response to the already foregone politicization of the judiciary (i.e., if judges are going to be making political decisions, we damn well better be able to get them out when they make ones we don't like)?
   
   
2. If "judicial-branch philosophical differences are very different than their counterparts in the other two branches," then why is it seemingly so easy to predict where a judge will fall based on standard political labels?
   
   
3. Do I understand the process, considerations, and technical matters involved with making legislation well enough to choose a representative, one who I've never watched address the assembly, whose record of bill sponsorship I'm not familiar with, whose practice of interacting with lobbyists I'm not aware of?
   
   
4. When you said that the tendency of retired judges to approve judges similar to themselves and to more heavily scrutinize judges with novel approaches to judicial

[goobermunch]

1. Judicial retention policies like Colorado's are not too terribly political, witness the results of last night's election. Despite an organized attempt to "Clear the Bench," all of the judges standing for retention were retained. That's because unlike legislators and executives, judges generally don't play the game for points. They play the game to try to get to the right results. Sure, those results may be informed by their political biases, but those political biases are not the litmus test for selection

[goobermunch]

Which is what happens.

Besides, when the committee recommends against retention most judges "decide to spend more time with their families."

Fact of the matter is, our system is the most impartial and apolitical system of judicial retention out there. It counterbalances the problem of judges appointed for life, by placing a very low bar to retention. It also reminds the judges (and the People) that even judicial power flows from the people.

But generally speaking, it doesn't result in judges losing their jobs or spending money on campaigns. It seems like a pretty good system.

BTW, the judicial council's recommendations are based on surveys filled out by a random sample of attorneys who appeared before the judges standing for retention.

--G