I Was Alabama’s Top Judge. I’m Ashamed by What I Had to Do to Get There.

[fromderinside]

Isn't the basic premise of democracy that voters know what they want and deserve to get it?

Perhaps the problem is that your vision of what a judge should be conflicts with what the voters want.

Two wrongs don't make a Right.

1. Voters are instructed to be informed then they can choose what is right. The deserving thing relates to voters neither knowing what they want or not being informed on what are the issues.

2. how can one's vision conflict with what voters want when what voters want is only represented by a minority who vote mostly out of loyalty to something.

Not saying these things are wrong. Its just the way things play out.

Deserving is so transitory in such conversations as to be meaningless.

 

[dismal]

Isn't the basic premise of democracy that voters know what they want and deserve to get it?

I don't think that's a basic premise.
Even if most voters know what they want (not all, but still), some of those voters deserve to get what they want, and some don't. Sometimes, even most voters don't deserve to get what they want.
But maybe I'm missing something about your definition of "democracy", or what you mean by "premise" in this context?

Well, I paraphrased a Mencken quote there and left off the last part. (which is "good and hard")

But what I mean is who decides what qualities a judge should have? Loren, the elite here at TFT, or a majority the voters?

The basic premise of Democracy is that it's a majority of the voters.

 

[dismal]

Isn't the basic premise of democracy that voters know what they want and deserve to get it?

Perhaps the problem is that your vision of what a judge should be conflicts with what the voters want.

Two wrongs don't make a Right.

1. Voters are instructed to be informed then they can choose what is right. The deserving thing relates to voters neither knowing what they want or not being informed on what are the issues.

2. how can one's vision conflict with what voters want when what voters want is only represented by a minority who vote mostly out of loyalty to something.

Not saying these things are wrong. Its just the way things play out.

Deserving is so transitory in such conversations as to be meaningless.

And when in Rome...

I don't understand the relevance of that "two wrongs" phrase here. Since when is assuming voters should be the judge of the qualifications of government officials in a democracy a "wrong"?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Well, I paraphrased a Mencken quote there and left off the last part. (which is "good and hard")

Okay, so the expression is: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

That is an overgeneralization - and so, false -, granting "the common people" is precise enough to be used in the context in which he used it. Sometimes, some of those people deserve to get what they want. Sometimes they do not. For example, if most of those people want slavery to be allowed, or want Black people not to be allowed to vote, or to marry, or want to ban interracial marriage and only allow same-race marriage, they don't deserve to get what they want.

So, if democracy is what Mencken says in that quote, it's a false theory.
With regard to your question to Loren: "Is it time to call off democracy?"

I'm not sure how you call off a theory. But it's time to call it a false theory (well, if that's what democracy is, and one is inclined to make assessments on the matter and state them), or call Mencken on it, or (I've not read his work) reckon that perhaps taking the quote alone leaves aside relevant context, so he did not mean that, and does not support your position on the matter. In any case, that does not seem to support your view.

But what I mean is who decides what qualities a judge should have? Loren, the elite here at TFT, or a majority the voters?

The basic premise of Democracy is that it's a majority of the voters.

When you say "what qualities a judge should have?" are you using "should" in a moral sense?
If it's a moral sense, the use of passive voice makes it a bit ambiguous, but in any case, it's clear that the majority's view does not make a judge morally good or bad, just or unjust, etc., so if that's a basic premise of democracy (or capitalized "Democracy"), then Democracy is false - or else, you are mistaken and that is not a premise of Democracy.

If that's not a moral sense of "should", what do you mean?
Maybe that a majority of voters decides what conditions a person needs to have in order to be a judge?

In any case, the part about who "decides" is also problematic.
If you're saying that a basic premise of the theory "Democracy" is that in some place (where?) a majority of voters decides what conditions a person needs to have in order to be a judge, then the US is not one of such places. In the case of SC justices, the conditions are established in the Constitution, and a majority of voters may not constitutionally change that - nor can they in practice do that.
In the case of, say, lower federal courts, the decision is made by Congress, but that's not the same as a majority of voters. For example, the Senate is elected at a state level, and party X can have most Senators even if party Y has more votes. The same goes even for the House. Moreover, even if the composition of Congress reflected the majority of votes, they may well make choices the majority of people do not agree with.

If you're saying that a basic premise of Democracy is that it is just that most voters get to decide like that, then Democracy is false. It may be just sometimes in the sense it produces just results, and unjust some other times.
Maybe most voters want judges to be only Muslim males. Or Christian White males. Or whatever. But said choices in no way guarantee or make it likely that the judges will all or most be just.

If you didn't mean any of that, I would ask for clarification of the premise in question.

 

[dismal]

Okay, so the expression is: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

That is an overgeneralization - and so, false -, granting "the common people" is precise enough to be used in the context in which he used it. Sometimes, some of those people deserve to get what they want. Sometimes they do not. For example, if most of those people want slavery to be allowed, or want Black people not to be allowed to vote, or to marry, or want to ban interracial marriage and only allow same-race marriage, they don't deserve to get what they want.

So, if democracy is what Mencken says in that quote, it's a false theory.
With regard to your question to Loren: "Is it time to call off democracy?"

I'm not sure how you call off a theory. But it's time to call it a false theory (well, if that's what democracy is, and one is inclined to make assessments on the matter and state them), or call Mencken on it, or (I've not read his work) reckon that perhaps taking the quote alone leaves aside relevant context, so he did not mean that, and does not support your position on the matter. In any case, that does not seem to support your view.

But what I mean is who decides what qualities a judge should have? Loren, the elite here at TFT, or a majority the voters?

The basic premise of Democracy is that it's a majority of the voters.

When you say "what qualities a judge should have?" are you using "should" in a moral sense?
If it's a moral sense, the use of passive voice makes it a bit ambiguous, but in any case, it's clear that the majority's view does not make a judge morally good or bad, just or unjust, etc., so if that's a basic premise of democracy (or capitalized "Democracy"), then Democracy is false - or else, you are mistaken and that is not a premise of Democracy.

If that's not a moral sense of "should", what do you mean?
Maybe that a majority of voters decides what conditions a person needs to have in order to be a judge?

In any case, the part about who "decides" is also problematic.
If you're saying that a basic premise of the theory "Democracy" is that in some place (where?) a majority of voters decides what conditions a person needs to have in order to be a judge, then the US is not one of such places. In the case of SC justices, the conditions are established in the Constitution, and a majority of voters may not constitutionally change that - nor can they in practice do that.
In the case of, say, lower federal courts, the decision is made by Congress, but that's not the same as a majority of voters. For example, the Senate is elected at a state level, and party X can have most Senators even if party Y has more votes. The same goes even for the House. Moreover, even if the composition of Congress reflected the majority of votes, they may well make choices the majority of people do not agree with.

If you're saying that a basic premise of Democracy is that it is just that most voters get to decide like that, then Democracy is false. It may be just sometimes in the sense it produces just results, and unjust some other times.
Maybe most voters want judges to be only Muslim males. Or Christian White males. Or whatever. But said choices in no way guarantee or make it likely that the judges will all or most be just.

If you didn't mean any of that, I would ask for clarification of the premise in question.

It seems like you're making a very simple point extraordinarily complicated.

Democracy is largely based in the idea that voters should determine what qualities they want a public official to have. "Should" here just means we accept that voters/elections are the better than any other people/means of doing it.

You may be correct that voters would not elect the "most just" judges, however you define that, but in democracy the goal is not for officials to meet your standards. The point is voters will elect judges who have the level and the sort of justness that they want.

 

[bilby]

Okay, so the expression is: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

That is an overgeneralization - and so, false -, granting "the common people" is precise enough to be used in the context in which he used it. Sometimes, some of those people deserve to get what they want. Sometimes they do not. For example, if most of those people want slavery to be allowed, or want Black people not to be allowed to vote, or to marry, or want to ban interracial marriage and only allow same-race marriage, they don't deserve to get what they want.

So, if democracy is what Mencken says in that quote, it's a false theory.
With regard to your question to Loren: "Is it time to call off democracy?"

I'm not sure how you call off a theory. But it's time to call it a false theory (well, if that's what democracy is, and one is inclined to make assessments on the matter and state them), or call Mencken on it, or (I've not read his work) reckon that perhaps taking the quote alone leaves aside relevant context, so he did not mean that, and does not support your position on the matter. In any case, that does not seem to support your view.


When you say "what qualities a judge should have?" are you using "should" in a moral sense?
If it's a moral sense, the use of passive voice makes it a bit ambiguous, but in any case, it's clear that the majority's view does not make a judge morally good or bad, just or unjust, etc., so if that's a basic premise of democracy (or capitalized "Democracy"), then Democracy is false - or else, you are mistaken and that is not a premise of Democracy.

If that's not a moral sense of "should", what do you mean?
Maybe that a majority of voters decides what conditions a person needs to have in order to be a judge?

In any case, the part about who "decides" is also problematic.
If you're saying that a basic premise of the theory "Democracy" is that in some place (where?) a majority of voters decides what conditions a person needs to have in order to be a judge, then the US is not one of such places. In the case of SC justices, the conditions are established in the Constitution, and a majority of voters may not constitutionally change that - nor can they in practice do that.
In the case of, say, lower federal courts, the decision is made by Congress, but that's not the same as a majority of voters. For example, the Senate is elected at a state level, and party X can have most Senators even if party Y has more votes. The same goes even for the House. Moreover, even if the composition of Congress reflected the majority of votes, they may well make choices the majority of people do not agree with.

If you're saying that a basic premise of Democracy is that it is just that most voters get to decide like that, then Democracy is false. It may be just sometimes in the sense it produces just results, and unjust some other times.
Maybe most voters want judges to be only Muslim males. Or Christian White males. Or whatever. But said choices in no way guarantee or make it likely that the judges will all or most be just.

If you didn't mean any of that, I would ask for clarification of the premise in question.

It seems like you're making a very simple point extraordinarily complicated.

Democracy is largely based in the idea that voters should determine what qualities they want a public official to have. "Should" here just means we accept that voters/elections are the better than any other people/means of doing it.

You may be correct that voters would not elect the "most just" judges, however you define that, but in democracy the goal is not for officials to meet your standards. The point is voters will elect judges who have the level and the sort of justness that they want.

And the counter-argument is that democracy is not the appropriate way to decide this question.

Do you believe that all questions are best answered by the use of democracy? Or even that all questions relating to the government of a nation are best answered by the use of democracy? In your opinion, are there no questions about the nature and form government should take that are better left to experts?

 

[Axulus]

The problem is they have a duty to the constitution and the law, sometimes that conflicts with popular opinion.

This is true of all elected officials. Is it time to call off democracy?

The separation of powers keeps them in check. If politicians are elected based on popular opinion, they need someone with expertise and without bias to keep them in check and hold them accountable to the law.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, so the expression is: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

That is an overgeneralization - and so, false -, granting "the common people" is precise enough to be used in the context in which he used it. Sometimes, some of those people deserve to get what they want. Sometimes they do not. For example, if most of those people want slavery to be allowed, or want Black people not to be allowed to vote, or to marry, or want to ban interracial marriage and only allow same-race marriage, they don't deserve to get what they want.

So, if democracy is what Mencken says in that quote, it's a false theory.
With regard to your question to Loren: "Is it time to call off democracy?"

I'm not sure how you call off a theory. But it's time to call it a false theory (well, if that's what democracy is, and one is inclined to make assessments on the matter and state them), or call Mencken on it, or (I've not read his work) reckon that perhaps taking the quote alone leaves aside relevant context, so he did not mean that, and does not support your position on the matter. In any case, that does not seem to support your view.


When you say "what qualities a judge should have?" are you using "should" in a moral sense?
If it's a moral sense, the use of passive voice makes it a bit ambiguous, but in any case, it's clear that the majority's view does not make a judge morally good or bad, just or unjust, etc., so if that's a basic premise of democracy (or capitalized "Democracy"), then Democracy is false - or else, you are mistaken and that is not a premise of Democracy.

If that's not a moral sense of "should", what do you mean?
Maybe that a majority of voters decides what conditions a person needs to have in order to be a judge?

In any case, the part about who "decides" is also problematic.
If you're saying that a basic premise of the theory "Democracy" is that in some place (where?) a majority of voters decides what conditions a person needs to have in order to be a judge, then the US is not one of such places. In the case of SC justices, the conditions are established in the Constitution, and a majority of voters may not constitutionally change that - nor can they in practice do that.
In the case of, say, lower federal courts, the decision is made by Congress, but that's not the same as a majority of voters. For example, the Senate is elected at a state level, and party X can have most Senators even if party Y has more votes. The same goes even for the House. Moreover, even if the composition of Congress reflected the majority of votes, they may well make choices the majority of people do not agree with.

If you're saying that a basic premise of Democracy is that it is just that most voters get to decide like that, then Democracy is false. It may be just sometimes in the sense it produces just results, and unjust some other times.
Maybe most voters want judges to be only Muslim males. Or Christian White males. Or whatever. But said choices in no way guarantee or make it likely that the judges will all or most be just.

If you didn't mean any of that, I would ask for clarification of the premise in question.

It seems like you're making a very simple point extraordinarily complicated.

Democracy is largely based in the idea that voters should determine what qualities they want a public official to have. "Should" here just means we accept that voters/elections are the better than any other people/means of doing it.

You may be correct that voters would not elect the "most just" judges, however you define that, but in democracy the goal is not for officials to meet your standards. The point is voters will elect judges who have the level and the sort of justness that they want.

A law passed by congress can itself violate the law. It's not pure democracy that we are after, but a combination of democracy with rights that can not be easily overridden by democracy.

 

[dismal]

It seems like you're making a very simple point extraordinarily complicated.

Democracy is largely based in the idea that voters should determine what qualities they want a public official to have. "Should" here just means we accept that voters/elections are the better than any other people/means of doing it.

You may be correct that voters would not elect the "most just" judges, however you define that, but in democracy the goal is not for officials to meet your standards. The point is voters will elect judges who have the level and the sort of justness that they want.

And the counter-argument is that democracy is not the appropriate way to decide this question.

Do you believe that all questions are best answered by the use of democracy? Or even that all questions relating to the government of a nation are best answered by the use of democracy? In your opinion, are there no questions about the nature and form government should take that are better left to experts?

What would you say are the general characteristics of a problem democracy is best to solve?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It seems like you're making a very simple point extraordinarily complicated.

Nope, I was just going with what you were saying, analyzing cases and asking for clarification. But you are still being unclear. I will consider a few of the different potential interpretations of your words.

Democracy is largely based in the idea that voters should determine what qualities they want a public official to have. "Should" here just means we accept that voters/elections are the better than any other people/means of doing it.

But different voters have different views on the matter, so if by "voters" you mean "all voters", that is not the case in any democracy.

On the other hand, if by "voters" you mean something like "most voters", then that does not work, either. For example, when it comes to the qualities that are required for holding some public offices - in fact, the top jobs, like President, Supreme Court Justice, Senator, etc. -, some of those qualities are in fact established (in the case of the US, and many other countries) in the Constitution.

Voters only vote to pick among some of those so qualified in some cases (e.g., Representatives), but in others, (e.g., Supreme Court Justices) they do not. Moreover, it's not the case that all voters or even most voters get the officials they want (from that limited pool). Rather, majorities are counted in different districts, not nationwide. Moreover, even a candidate hated by the majority may be elected by the largest minority.

Would you say that according to Democracy (which you seem to treat as a theory at least sometimes), a better means would be to remove Constitutional requirements, districts, states, etc., and just let the majority decide?

You may be correct that voters would not elect the "most just" judges, however you define that, but in democracy the goal is not for officials to meet your standards. The point is voters will elect judges who have the level and the sort of justness that they want.

But I'm not defining "just", just as I'm not defining "car", "defining", or "blue". My point is that words have meaning, and I'm using the word "just" in the usual meaning of the word in English.

I'm not entirely sure whether here you're endorsing some specific metaethical view - some kind of relativism, perhaps? Please clarify.

That aside, it's not the case that voters will always elect judges who have the level and the sort of justness they want, because:

1. In nearly all democracies, most judges are not elected by voters. In the US, at least top judges are not.
2. Even in cases of election, many voters lose: they vote for a candidate, but that candidate is not elected. Those voters are not represented.
3. Even a candidate hated by most voters may be elected: he just gets the votes of the largest minority (a runoff election will not avoid that, even if it might make it less frequent).
4. Voters only choose among a very limited pool of candidates - the candidates that met the registration standards and/or quality standards, depending on the case. It may well be that there is no candidate that has the level of justness that a voter (or that most voters) want, or who agrees with them on what is just, for the most part.

That aside, you're leaving now aside your claim about what Democracy says about what people deserve. Even if they (who are they? Most voters?) get the judges they want, that does not mean they get the candidates they deserve to get. What if they want judges that tend to be oppressive towards minorities? Maybe a majority gets away with it, but that does not mean they deserve those judges (and if you say Democracy is a theory that holds they always deserve it, then it's false)?

 

[bilby]

And the counter-argument is that democracy is not the appropriate way to decide this question.

Do you believe that all questions are best answered by the use of democracy? Or even that all questions relating to the government of a nation are best answered by the use of democracy? In your opinion, are there no questions about the nature and form government should take that are better left to experts?

What would you say are the general characteristics of a problem democracy is best to solve?

I wouldn't; I am not talking about 'solving problems', I am talking about 'answering questions'. Democracy (as practised today) doesn't usually try to solve problems, it tries to answer questions. Voters are typically asked 'Which of these candidates do you want to be in charge of solving problem X?', rather than 'What should be done about problem X?'.

And I am asking YOU to answer the questions: "Do you believe that all questions are best answered by the use of democracy? Or even that all questions relating to the government of a nation are best answered by the use of democracy? In your opinion, are there no questions about the nature and form government should take that are better left to experts?".

To those I would now like to add:

Are you seeking to put these questions to a democratic vote? Do you think that your opinion can only be determined by asking everyone else what you think, and taking the response of the majority as the right answer?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is they have a duty to the constitution and the law, sometimes that conflicts with popular opinion.

This is true of all elected officials. Is it time to call off democracy?

I've actually wondered if we should radically change how elections work:

Vote for members of a hiring committee. The hiring committee does the actual staffing of government.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think that's a basic premise.
Even if most voters know what they want (not all, but still), some of those voters deserve to get what they want, and some don't. Sometimes, even most voters don't deserve to get what they want.
But maybe I'm missing something about your definition of "democracy", or what you mean by "premise" in this context?

Well, I paraphrased a Mencken quote there and left off the last part. (which is "good and hard")

But what I mean is who decides what qualities a judge should have? Loren, the elite here at TFT, or a majority the voters?

The basic premise of Democracy is that it's a majority of the voters.

Judges are supposed to put the law above the will of the voters.

If you don't like the fact that a judge ruled in an unpopular fashion in compliance with the law you should change the law, not blame the judge.

 

[dismal]

What would you say are the general characteristics of a problem democracy is best to solve?

I wouldn't; I am not talking about 'solving problems', I am talking about 'answering questions'. Democracy (as practised today) doesn't usually try to solve problems, it tries to answer questions. Voters are typically asked 'Which of these candidates do you want to be in charge of solving problem X?', rather than 'What should be done about problem X?'.

And I am asking YOU to answer the questions: "Do you believe that all questions are best answered by the use of democracy? Or even that all questions relating to the government of a nation are best answered by the use of democracy? In your opinion, are there no questions about the nature and form government should take that are better left to experts?".

To those I would now like to add:

Are you seeking to put these questions to a democratic vote? Do you think that your opinion can only be determined by asking everyone else what you think, and taking the response of the majority as the right answer?

I am pointing out that we generally operate on the premise that democracy is the best way to answer the question 'Which of these candidates do you want to be in charge of solving problem X?'

I am generally in agreement with this, and I can tick off a few reasons for this if you like. You probably learned many of them in school. But, importantly, they may not be the same reasons you would choose.

The reasons I would choose would generally seem to apply to judges as well. I am asking what reasons you have that are different, or if you have the same reasons why they suddenly no longer apply with respect to judges.

Many of those other questions you ask are not relevant to my line of argument. If you have some other reason why you would like me to answer them, I can. Maybe in a separate thread.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

dismal won't be happy until everyone thinks voting is as futile as he does.

Granted, I believe voting is futile, but because I keep having to vote the prevent defense because there is no viable liberal party to vote for.

 

[dismal]

dismal won't be happy until everyone thinks voting is as futile as he does.

Granted, I believe voting is futile, but because I keep having to vote the prevent defense because there is no viable liberal party to vote for.

Me voting personally is futile for mathematical reasons. I don't object to voting in general and think it's the best overall way to choose government officials.

These people are rejecting the fundamental reasons behind elections, not the math.

 

[bilby]

I wouldn't; I am not talking about 'solving problems', I am talking about 'answering questions'. Democracy (as practised today) doesn't usually try to solve problems, it tries to answer questions. Voters are typically asked 'Which of these candidates do you want to be in charge of solving problem X?', rather than 'What should be done about problem X?'.

And I am asking YOU to answer the questions: "Do you believe that all questions are best answered by the use of democracy? Or even that all questions relating to the government of a nation are best answered by the use of democracy? In your opinion, are there no questions about the nature and form government should take that are better left to experts?".

To those I would now like to add:

Are you seeking to put these questions to a democratic vote? Do you think that your opinion can only be determined by asking everyone else what you think, and taking the response of the majority as the right answer?

I am pointing out that we generally operate on the premise that democracy is the best way to answer the question 'Which of these candidates do you want to be in charge of solving problem X?'

I am generally in agreement with this, and I can tick off a few reasons for this if you like. You probably learned many of them in school. But, importantly, they may not be the same reasons you would choose.

The reasons I would choose would generally seem to apply to judges as well. I am asking what reasons you have that are different, or if you have the same reasons why they suddenly no longer apply with respect to judges.

Many of those other questions you ask are not relevant to my line of argument. If you have some other reason why you would like me to answer them, I can. Maybe in a separate thread.

Legislation and excercise of the executive powers are generalist tasks - any questions might come up, in any field, and as nobody is an expert in every field that might arise, selection based on expertise is not appropriate.

This is not true of judges; judges need to be experts in the law, because their job is to apply it in a uniform way and in accordance with the exact text passed by the legislature.

It makes no sense to chose judges by democratic election for the same reason that we don't choose doctors or engineers by democratic election. The job requires a definable narrow skill-set, and the wider public are not qualified to assess the level of those skills possessed by the candidates.

 

[dismal]

This is not true of judges; judges need to be experts in the law, because their job is to apply it in a uniform way and in accordance with the exact text passed by the legislature.

The arguments in this thread seem to be nothing but repeated assertions of what judges ought to be.

You aren't actually addressing my point, which is you are not in charge of deciding what judges ought to be. In democracy we entrust this to voters.

You are granted the right to vote from someone who fits your definition of what a person in a given office ought to be, but you are not entitled to strip others of their right to vote for someone who better meets their definition.

 

[bilby]

This is not true of judges; judges need to be experts in the law, because their job is to apply it in a uniform way and in accordance with the exact text passed by the legislature.

The arguments in this thread seem to be nothing but repeated assertions of what judges ought to be.

You aren't actually addressing my point, which is you are not in charge of deciding what judges ought to be. In democracy we entrust this to voters.

You are granted the right to vote from someone who fits your definition of what a person in a given office ought to be, but you are not entitled to strip others of their right to vote for someone who better meets their definition.

I am not suggesting I am in charge of anything; nor am I saying what judges ought to be; I am saying what judges ARE.

A doctor IS a person who knows how to treat sick and injured human beings. An engineer IS a person who knows how to build structures that don't fall down. A judge IS a person who applies the law. A president (or a legislator) IS someone who has to respond to any and all issues that might affect the nation and its governance; and who has to determine what policies should be applied to making a wide range of descisions. Of these four jobs, the only one where candidates cannot reasonably be judged competent by objective means is the latter.

A sane society chooses people by objective measures of their ability, where this is possible. Only in matters where this is not possible - such as the setting and implementation of policy - is it necessary to fall back on popularity contests to prevent abuses of power.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The arguments in this thread seem to be nothing but repeated assertions of what judges ought to be.

Some, but not all. Mine aren't.

But that aside, in your reply to bilby, you say:

You aren't actually addressing my point, which is you are not in charge of deciding what judges ought to be. In democracy we entrust this to voters.

You are granted the right to vote from someone who fits your definition of what a person in a given office ought to be, but you are not entitled to strip others of their right to vote for someone who better meets their definition.

Okay, so I will try to address that point of yours - I addressed others before -, but I would need some clarification.

Who is "we" who entrust that to voters? And where does that happen?

In the US - for example -, some judges at state level are elected by voters, but the most powerful judges in the country are not so elected. Neither are other federal judges.

In the UK, it seems no judges are appointed by voters.

What countries (if any) do you count as democracies?

 

[dismal]

I am saying what judges ARE.

Judges are what we make them. The do not burst forth from the sea fully formed on a half-shell with their judge like qualities imbued from some higher power. They are what a society wants them to be.

 

[dismal]

Some, but not all. Mine aren't.

But that aside, in your reply to bilby, you say:

You aren't actually addressing my point, which is you are not in charge of deciding what judges ought to be. In democracy we entrust this to voters.

You are granted the right to vote from someone who fits your definition of what a person in a given office ought to be, but you are not entitled to strip others of their right to vote for someone who better meets their definition.

Okay, so I will try to address that point of yours - I addressed others before -, but I would need some clarification.

Who is "we" who entrust that to voters? And where does that happen?

In the US - for example -, some judges at state level are elected by voters, but the most powerful judges in the country are not so elected. Neither are other federal judges.

In the UK, it seems no judges are appointed by voters.

What countries (if any) do you count as democracies?

I do not honestly see what these questions have to do with my point. There are plenty of countries in the real world that practice democracy in various degrees. There are some ways of selecting judges that are more democratic than others.

None of this has any relevance to my point. I am not holding out any particular country as being super-awesome in either its style of democracy or its way of picking out judges.

I am pointing out that what a judge is and what a judge does it a product of society, and in representative democracies what sort of people we want to hold an office is an issue that is generally decided by voters.

I need not comment on the wonders or failings of democracy in Sri Lanka or Djibouti to make this point.