206
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
206 points (99.5% liked)
World News
32359 readers
353 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The idea that judges shouldn't be elected is deeply rooted in the reactionary ideology of an aristocracy that believed the masses shouldn't be trusted with any decisions that actually matter and should be regarded with suspicion instead of trusted with decisions.
Judges shouldnt be elected for the same reasons surgeons shouldnt be elected.
This logic can be applied to lawmakers too.
What's the difference?
Legislators are there to directly reflect the opinions and interests of their constituents, judges are there to have expert knowledge of the law and how it applies to each case uniquely. The first needs some form of democratic mechanism to ensure that they represent people's current opinions, the later needs a meritocratic mechanism to ensure they are experts in the correct fields.
If judges were the only element of a court I would agree that it would be problematic to have no democratic input, but in common law systems at least that element is represented by juries who are the most powerful element of a court case as they are unchallengable arbiters of fact and drawn through sortition which is even more democratic than election.
This is ideology. There's no material mechanism to actually ensure judges are experts or have merit. They're just picked by politicians, who themselves are selected democratically rather than by merit.
This just cuts out the middlemen. If the selection process is unable to select for merit, then it might as well be democratic.
The UK has an independent Judicial Appointments Commission.
Which can be overruled by an elected official but generally is directed to pick on merit and allowed to do so.
Allowing professionals to pick experts and only stepping in when there is a problem is much better to me than direct elections which quickly become partisan and obstructive to professional candidates.
All it takes is getting a few panel members with an ideological axe to grind and suddenly the selection process for judges and the JAC panel itself becomes politicized in that particular direction.
But furthermore, the very framework of law is political. You can't actually non-politically adjudicate disputes or reviews or appointments or dismissals, there are always political underpinnings and ideological assumptions embedded within the process. The very fact that they currently "particularly welcome applications from ethnic minority candidates and Welsh speakers" is political, and acknowledges that it is political and ideological and not truly objective.
Law isn't math.
An attempt to be representative is not equal to being "political".
It's actually a strength of the system that minorities get some representation rather than being always voted into zero representatives. And they still have to pass the standards to be considered as experts in the field.
No system is perfect, but look at America. Small area elections for judges produce poor corrupt picks. Large area elections produce partisan fights with extremists campaigning against each other.
There's no country which is a good advert for directly electing judges.
The concept of representation is political - and anti-representation would also be political. You can't escape politics in law.
Where there's power, there's politics.
And the worst parts of the American system are the parts where judges are unelected, so that's a pretty bad example lol
Well if that's the meaning of "political you're using then all judges are. That's why I put it in quotes in my last reply, I assumed you meant partisan. Otherwise you'd have been making an irrelevant point.
Unfortunately the US has a storied history of elected local judges allowing lynchings, for example, while the appointed federal courts passed civil rights so I won't be taking notes.
Of course the appointed judges and elected judges are now targeting women and minorities. So your appointment system is also broken.
Again, not taking notes.
The problematic politics of elected judges in the US come from its fucked electoral system. US elections, for most of its history, were undemocratic at their core... and they still aren't very democratic tbh
But the worst judges, today, are appointed.
Your conception of politics being only partisan is very narrow; partisanship in liberal democracy is mostly just kayfabe.
So the problem with elected judges is the elections.
There are solutions to that. One of which is to appoint.
There are problems with appointed judges in America no doubt. Changes to appointments could definitely solve them. Elections most likely won't.
Politics is inevitable and unavoidable. Your choice of sandwiches is ultimately political. Let alone judges.
Partisan politics is avoidable.
Avoid partisanship in the justice system and then you solve a lot of problems.
The problem with elected judges is undemocratic elections. Democracy fixes the problem.
Asking millions of unqualified people to pick an expert and professional will not be as successful as an unbiased selection committee.
Not every problem is solvable with a popularity contest.
As long as a committee has democratic oversight democracy can still fix any problems as you wish. But it's much more efficient and successful most of the time.
But by that logic there's no reason to ask millions of unqualified people to pick an expert and professional legislator.
You're creating an arbitrary professional difference between creation of legislation and interpretation of legislation, but that's ideological. When it comes down to it, by your logic, legislators should be chosen by an unbiased selection committee. That's where your antidemocratic logic leads.
There are no illusions that politicians are experts.
Authority given to a judge is because of expertise, not in order to represent.
Elect representation, select expertise. Ensure oversight for both situations.
I've said before oversight is already in place be a democratically elected official. So stop with the silliness in claiming I'm antidemocratic.
The difference between you and me is you're sprouting ideology and I'm explaining how a good system actually works in the real world in my country.
Okay, and I'm responding to how a bad system actually works in the real world in my country. The lack of democratic input and oversight of the Judiciary in the US is the problem. US judges have always been bad because they were either appointed to undermine democracy or elected by undemocratic means. The problem has never been democracy.
Yes, but your country being unable to have sensible judicial selection and poor judicial elections is not an argument for anywhere else.
The US ranges from failure to bad.
Other countries range from the good to the point other countries refuse to replace their own court system in order to continue using the good judiciary that's trusted internationally.
Using the US as an example to follow in this case is a bad idea. Even if removing selection from the US system would be an improvement, it isn't relevant anywhere else.
Especially when discussing an ideological law like making elections compulsory.
Mexico, being a US neighbor, is probably basing some of this decision off of the shit show happening across the border. I suppose that does bias their decision making.
I guess we'll see how it works out, since this looks like a done deal.
I'm sure as hell I'd want to choose between surgeons. For example, I'd easily choose the one not trafficking organs.
Yeah but have you seen what the masses choose sometimes?
Always great to see how libs who never stop bleating about authoritarianism, don't actually believe in democracy themselves.