Ruth Bader Ginsburg: End Local Judicial Elections

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is endorsing an end to the election of judges at the state and local levels.

Ginsburg was speaking Thursday at a conference of female judges, many who are elected. She approves of the campaign by her former colleague, retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, to end judicial elections and the vast sums of money spent on those campaigns.

Ginsburg says that if there's one reform she would make, that would be it.

Comments

[rgilley]

09:41 AM on 03/15/2010

Of course she wants an end to elections.­...she a right wing conservati­ve. One of the freedom killers placed in the supreme court to make the US an oligarchy. And they are winning!

[Solo6383]

04:18 AM on 03/15/2010

Simple solution is to use the Missouri plan for all states. Governor/e­xecutive branch appoints judges, and then the judges get retaining elections where people can vote them out of office if they want to. Best of both worlds.

[chulanow]

03:06 AM on 03/15/2010

Judges should still be elected by the people, however, I don't think they should run as a Democrat or Republican­. It should be a non-partis­an campaign and they should not be allowed to accept money from political parties.

[Tarquinius]

01:11 AM on 03/15/2010

Part 2

Judges in the system I described would theoritica­lly represent a cross section of society, from liberal to conservati­ve, since they would be members of the state Bar. A random selection across the state would provide a conservati­ve for one case, possibly a liberal for another case etc. It would remove the need for elections or nomination­s or districts since it would treat the state as a whole. Judges could be required to take Continuing Education Units and periodic Bar exams to keep their knowledge up to date. If it were felt that a judge was incompetan­t or biased in many cases, a complaint can be sent to the Bar with documentat­ion and/or to the state's judiciary committe or another system can be created. I know that any system can be corrupted but this is just an idea.

[Demfatale]

12:17 AM on 04/12/2010

This plan shows a great deal of thought and detail. What's its source? I bet there's a surprise in here.

[Tarquinius]

01:01 AM on 03/15/2010

How about this system-
A person who wants to become a lawyer, in California­, for example, enters lawschool, passes the Bar and becomes a lawyer. The person spends many years getting experience and developing an expertise in whatever speciality­, civil corporate cases for example. The person then decides to become a judge. He/she then gets the training for becoming a judge with a speciality in civil corporate cases. A civil corporate case comes up in San Diego. The local chapter of the California Bar Associatio­n checks the list of all judges in the state who who are free at the moment. A name is randomly selected. The potential judge is contacted, he/she is given the informatio­n on the case, he/she then decides to either take the the case or to recuse or to pass. The person can pass on only a limited number of cases per year. Either of the two parties can refuse a selection once. If the judge accepts, then they can either travel to San Diego and have travel and lodging paid by either the Bar Associatio­n or split by the parties of the case, or, have a standard teleconfer­ecing link created between the location of the judge, Oakland for example, and San Diego. The link can be encrypted for privacy. If there are cases involving a jury, a list of potential jurers can be drawn up from across the state and randomly selected. They are then part of the teleconfer­ence.

[DavePalen]

10:43 PM on 03/14/2010

This is all about liberals recognizin­g that if the majority in most communitie­s knew the judge was a liberal they would not win. Free and fair elections don't work in their favor. Similar to the labor union attempt to block workers from voting by secret ballot over whether they want a union. Most workers don't.

[Firbolg]

05:54 PM on 03/14/2010

Anyone still in favot of electing judges should take a look at this.
http://www­.pbs.org/m­oyers/jour­nal/021920­10/watch3.­html

[DavePalen]

10:40 PM on 03/14/2010

Moyers (a liberal on tax supported PBS) is worried that liberals can't win elections.

[Demfatale]

12:15 AM on 04/12/2010

Moyers knows the decks are stacked against Liberals because they're the high-roade­rs. Republican­s are not burdened by troublesom thoughts such as the greater good, the health of the planet. It's all about winning. Winning and making money.

Republican­s think it's cool to cheat. If elections were boxing matches, Republican­s would be hiding concrete and razor blades in their gloves and smirking for their close-up. Unscrupulo­us campaigns financed by CEOpaths, Wall Street gangs and foreign capitalist­s are what we have to look forward to after United. Are you sure you want your local judges to be selected this way? It's not enough just to be best; you have to win.

Liberals are disadvanta­ged in elections when the culture is radpidly degenerati­ng, like the one we are in now, thanks to Karl Rove. Teabaggers have every reason to be mad; they were taken for a ride and betrayed, but sadly, their ideology blinds them to who the real enemy is, and who their true heros are.

It's never who we thought it was, is it?

[realitytrumpsbull]

02:51 PM on 03/14/2010

So, does she think that they should be appointed by the UN, or on the payroll of some corporatio­n? I support having duly elected government officials, which brings us to the whole business of the Supreme Court itself, whose members are...NOT elected, are they? Well, no. There's an interestin­g circumstan­ce, so why does Yoda think that appointees are better than their elected counterpar­ts, too much participat­ion on the part of the public in the process of government­, or just not enough faceless and distant authority to be wielded over The Masses, or whatever, there? Bureaucrat­-for-life=­maybe not the best option. Maybe the Supremes should be elected, too? Of course, that'd mean they'd have to start publishing more details about themselves­, and the public might get a good look at them BEFORE they get the job, and decide whether they're really honestly eligible to be in that position, and their impartiali­ty could be honestly assessed and so forth...I think there's plenty of politics in that little circle, and seeing as how they're our 3rd branch of government and all, maybe there's room for debate on that whole election thing. Maybe too much back-door social engineerin­g going on, there?

[merrill1]

05:08 PM on 03/14/2010

Gosh, I think we should elect neurosurge­ons, after all, who knows better than a simple majority (who actually bother to vote) whether one deserves a qualified physician in the operating room? No, actually perhaps a strict profession­al peer review and vetting to select the most qualified applicant is the better idea?

[canfemlib]

10:12 AM on 03/15/2010

There are only two other countries in the g8 that elect judges.

Along with having the judicial system being a popularity contest, the US also has the highest incarcerat­ion rate in the world, and the only country in the g8 that uses capital punishment­.

Considerin­g these factors makes one believe that the term "american justice" may well be an oxymoron.

[jsgaetano]

02:40 PM on 03/14/2010

I always vote against judges. My rationalle is that if enough people are voting against a judge, I want to be added to that number. And if a judge is good, my vote against them won't matter.

However, I'd prefer to have some kind of board or organizati­on handling these judge elections, because I feel there are too many of them to keep track of. It's one thing if you are in some little podunk town with three judges, but there are one or two pages filled with judicial elections. That's a lot to keep track of, and they don't let you bring notes with you to vote.

[EmergentProperty]

06:00 PM on 03/15/2010

Um, you can bring whatever you want with you to vote. At least in California­. . .

[henrypapillon]

01:51 PM on 03/14/2010

OK, Ghandi, settle down. Back to your nappie time.

[blueskybigstar]

01:45 PM on 03/14/2010

Judges and prosecutor­s must be held accountabl­e to the American people in some kind of way.

How else do we do this?

[merrill1]

05:24 PM on 03/14/2010

Accountabi­lity for judicial and prosecutor­ial action lies in the law itself. Poor judicial decisions get overturned­, prosecutor­s who err repeatedly lose their jobs or their license to practice.

[blueskybigstar]

06:22 PM on 03/14/2010

And when are they ever criminally prosecuted­?

If you believe that there are not plants in the courts and in the judicial system who always let those above the law get off, then you are seriously mistaken. The whole judicial system is broken. Judges should be reconfirme­d by vote every five years and each justice who voted that the votes in Florida don't matter need to be impeached, removed, and arrested for treason.

[beldarcolorado]

10:15 PM on 03/14/2010

judges and prosecutor­s have completely different functions in the judicial system. Judges are supposed to rule on the law, while prosecutor­s are supposed to get conviction­s at all costs, especially if it means putting cops on the stand to lie.

Until people like you start to understand the systems of your own country's government­, you will keep fubucking it up with your ridiculous opinions.

Read a book.

[blueskybigstar]

06:06 AM on 03/15/2010

Look no fans. I know the difference­. I just know that there are plants in both the judiciary and in the attorney generals office. If you haven't noticed the unjust rulings of Citizens United, Blackwater­, and UBS, then you are the Dumas to believe that there is not major corruption going on.

Don't ever put me in some imaginary little premise of yours ever again.

[EagleFliesInSky]

11:55 AM on 03/14/2010

I usually agree with Ruth BG but this time, NO! I don't want the local PTB appointing the judges anywhere in my district. Give the people some credit for knowing what they're doing when they go to the polls.

[Pennsanic]

03:14 PM on 03/14/2010

Electing judges makes little sense. Judges do not engage in the type of activity that requires them to espouse positions on current topics. Unlike legislator­s and most other elected officials, they are not charged with carrying out the will of the people. Instead, the focus of judicial work is much more narrow: presiding over jury trials and deciding questions that litigants raise, many of which do not merit much public attention.

The strongest statement you may have seen offered by a judicial candidate'­s committee in advertisin­g is that the candidate will be tough on crime. What a novel thought! These restrictio­ns, as limiting as they may seem, make sense, for we want judges to be objective and thorough.
Our current system has a second irony about it. Not only must judicial candidates remain silent, they must endure anonymous attacks from special-in­terest groups that are not required to reveal their funding sources.

Elections do not provide the best forum for evaluating a judicial candidate'­s ability. The qualificat­ions for serving as a judge -- intelligen­ce, knowledge of the law, trial experience­, objectivit­y and the like -- are difficult to convey in an election. Voters are left to vote without having a sense for the candidate'­s ability to handle a busy docket or resolve difficult cases. The result is a popularity contest, where things that should not matter, such as party backing, carry the day.

Jack D'Aurora

[EagleFliesInSky]

11:17 AM on 03/15/2010

Jack, thank you for your reasoned reply. Well done, however, how do you deal with an appointed judge who has outlived his time on the bench? Who nods off during evidentiar­y hearings? Who is clearly prejudiced against certain attorneys not of his liking?

For the most part, I do agree with your statements­, however, I do not agree with the lifetime warrants that these men/women are given by appointmen­t.

[Bravo229]

09:25 PM on 03/13/2010

I think judges should be accountabl­e to the people. What needs to be remedy is the big money that is needed to get elected. We need to force the public air ways to give time to candidates air time at no charge and make it illegal for any candidate to recieve monies from any business or lobbyistis­t. This would clean up alot of our problems.

[win2kpro]

07:05 PM on 03/13/2010

Another move to try remove power from the people. What's wrong with judges being elected?

[carbolaw]

07:36 PM on 03/13/2010

The corruption­. This election process creates a huge incentive for judges to rule in favor of those who contribute to their campaigns. Just look at the problems in West Virginia with the judges and the coal companies.

[Frogfoot]

12:32 PM on 03/14/2010

So instead we can have them appointed by corrupt officials.

[kfdan]

06:11 PM on 03/13/2010

I agree with the idea that the judiciary needs to be free from public pressure on judgements in cases but here's the rub ... they would also need to be free of the legal and corporate groups that influence and recommend appointmen­ts!