Some time ago, I would have said "yes". Now that it's easy for someone to find an audience concerning judicial complaints, I don't think it's as necessary anymore.
No. I agree that the system works most of the time. Judges should be relatively insulated from whims of disgruntled litigants -- or legislators. It is hard enough to recruit qualified candidates considering the pay (big bucks to most, I know, but way below the private sector). When they stray totally beyond the bounds of appropriateness -- Judge Young, Judge Lewis, Judge Harding, Judge Anderson, Judge Steed -- it usually gets taken care of.
That is about the dumbest comment I have ever heard. Oldenburg, "No, we shouldn't audit Judges" what are you smokn! first of all, are you trying to state only bad judges are tossed by voters? How do you think voters are going to find out what a judge is doing? yes, our system works, that is why past judges have gotten away with hurting good people because they are in a bad mood. Maybe you are one of the people who think a judge can create his own law. Are you saying Judges are exempt? what are you afraid of, if a judge has not done anything wrong maybe he shouldn't have to worry! you scare me.. its because of concerned citizens help keep the system inline so it does work and help avoid corruption. Think about it!
Yes. We need appropriate checks and balances. But we would have to be very careful about how the audit system is designed. It would need to be transparent, have clear objectives, and be insulated as much as possible from inappropriate influence.
We need to allow judges the flexibility to appropriately interpret and apply the law. But we also need to know when judges exceed this mandate. They must ultimately be answerable to the people. Our current system only removes those who exhibit extremely outlandish behavior. Those that act decent but exceed their mandate often never receive public scrutiny.
I do not believe that an appropriately designed ongoing audit system would drive good judicial candidates away. It seems more likely that it would drive away the kind of people we don't want serving as judges.
7 comments:
No. Our system works. When you are too crazy, incompetent, or corrupt, you get tossed by the voters when you are up for retention.
No, our system works fine.
Some time ago, I would have said "yes". Now that it's easy for someone to find an audience concerning judicial complaints, I don't think it's as necessary anymore.
No. I agree that the system works most of the time. Judges should be relatively insulated from whims of disgruntled litigants -- or legislators. It is hard enough to recruit qualified candidates considering the pay (big bucks to most, I know, but way below the private sector). When they stray totally beyond the bounds of appropriateness -- Judge Young, Judge Lewis, Judge Harding, Judge Anderson, Judge Steed -- it usually gets taken care of.
YES! Wait until you go through an issue like divorce, or worse and a judge doesn't follow the law, but legislates from the bench.
Most of these comments must be coming from bloodsucking lawyers.
That is about the dumbest comment I have ever heard. Oldenburg, "No, we shouldn't audit Judges" what are you smokn! first of all, are you trying to state only bad judges are tossed by voters? How do you think voters are going to find out what a judge is doing? yes, our system works, that is why past judges have gotten away with hurting good people because they are in a bad mood. Maybe you are one of the people who think a judge can create his own law. Are you saying Judges are exempt? what are you afraid of, if a judge has not done anything wrong maybe he shouldn't have to worry! you scare me.. its because of concerned citizens help keep the system inline so it does work and help avoid corruption. Think about it!
Yes. We need appropriate checks and balances. But we would have to be very careful about how the audit system is designed. It would need to be transparent, have clear objectives, and be insulated as much as possible from inappropriate influence.
We need to allow judges the flexibility to appropriately interpret and apply the law. But we also need to know when judges exceed this mandate. They must ultimately be answerable to the people. Our current system only removes those who exhibit extremely outlandish behavior. Those that act decent but exceed their mandate often never receive public scrutiny.
I do not believe that an appropriately designed ongoing audit system would drive good judicial candidates away. It seems more likely that it would drive away the kind of people we don't want serving as judges.
Post a Comment