this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
64 points (100.0% liked)
World News
242 readers
425 users here now
Rules:
- Be a decent person
- No spam
- Add the byline, or write a line or two in the body about the article.
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So these judges are basically refusing a democratic foundation for their power. This policy should be brought to other countries. I'd love to make Clarence Thomas win an election to keep his seat. Or all the other judges that overthrew Roe v. Wade for that matter.
Or a vote of retention like Colorado does. Governor appoints the judges but voters must retain them or new judges must be appointed. Kind of strikes a balance between overtly campaigning judges and more democratic influence on the judiciary
That actually does sound better. Voter assessment of actions in office, not influence of who gets into office (e.g. I don't think I'm qualified to pick a Supreme Court judge). It serves as a check and balance on situations like we see today where the SCOTUS is destroying public trust in the justice system.
Yeah, i would actually rather cases be assigned randomly to people on the circuit court instead of having people on a Supreme Court, even if they're term limited. Then you just rotate who the assignments go to, and force the circuit courts to be elected, just like everybody else. But, there's also more of them, so less chance of there being attempts at partisan stacking.