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

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

It is somewhat difficult to assess the matter if you don't let me know what countries you count as "representative democracies", but still, the fact is that in all countries that are regarded as such by many people (but maybe not by you? Without knowing more about your classification, it's difficult to address your points), there are some public offices with respect to which most voters make such decisions within the contraints of some legal framework, generally not left up to most voters, whereas some other - most - public offices are usually not like that.

For example, if you take a look at Europe or most of Latin America (or just Europe if most of LA doesn't mean your standards), you will not see police officers being chosen in that fashion. Nor judges. Nor military officers. Nor doctors in public hospitals. Nor professors or assistants in public universities. Nor the zillion state employees (maybe you would prefer to call them "government employees"? Pick your vocabulary, that's not important) working to keep the state running (maybe you would prefer "government"?).

So, in most cases, the decision is not left to (some of the) voters.

Granted, there are offices for which elections are the norm in countries regarded by many as representative democracies. However, judges are not among them. In nearly all representative democracies, the choice of judges is not decided by voters (unless you count the votes of some comittee, or Senate, etc., but I don't think that's your point), but by other procedures - at least, going by what I would call a representative democracy; I could address the issue more accurately if you could make a list of the countries (at least, say, a dozen) that you count as representative democracies.

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

Perhaps not. But your point seems to be false (see above), unless by "public office" you mean some specific offices (a small percentage of all government jobs). But I'm not sure how that would help your case (whatever your case might be). After all, the fact remains that in representative democracies, the election of judges is one of those offices generally not left to [some of the] voters.

Moreover, you seemed to be making another point, namely about what is [at least generally] the best way to choose who holds and office. If you're implying that choosing judges by some sort of vote is a better way of picking them than any other way (at least, generally), I would ask you to make your case.

 

[bilby]

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.

Like surgeons? We should put the selection of surgeons up for a democratic vote too, right?

You are being dogmatic, and dogmatism (as always) leads to stupid positions that a rational approach would not cause anyone to take.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is somewhat difficult to assess the matter if you don't let me know what countries you count as "representative democracies", but still, the fact is that in all countries that are regarded as such by many people (but maybe not by you? Without knowing more about your classification, it's difficult to address your points), there are some public offices with respect to which most voters make such decisions within the contraints of some legal framework, generally not left up to most voters, whereas some other - most - public offices are usually not like that.

For example, if you take a look at Europe or most of Latin America (or just Europe if most of LA doesn't mean your standards), you will not see police officers being chosen in that fashion. Nor judges. Nor military officers. Nor doctors in public hospitals. Nor professors or assistants in public universities. Nor the zillion state employees (maybe you would prefer to call them "government employees"? Pick your vocabulary, that's not important) working to keep the state running (maybe you would prefer "government"?).

So, in most cases, the decision is not left to (some of the) voters.

Granted, there are offices for which elections are the norm in countries regarded by many as representative democracies. However, judges are not among them. In nearly all representative democracies, the choice of judges is not decided by voters (unless you count the votes of some comittee, or Senate, etc., but I don't think that's your point), but by other procedures - at least, going by what I would call a representative democracy; I could address the issue more accurately if you could make a list of the countries (at least, say, a dozen) that you count as representative democracies.

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

Perhaps not. But your point seems to be false (see above), unless by "public office" you mean some specific offices (a small percentage of all government jobs). But I'm not sure how that would help your case (whatever your case might be). After all, the fact remains that in representative democracies, the election of judges is one of those offices generally not left to [some of the] voters.

Moreover, you seemed to be making another point, namely about what is [at least generally] the best way to choose who holds and office. If you're implying that choosing judges by some sort of vote is a better way of picking them than any other way (at least, generally), I would ask you to make your case.

Sorry, where I said "Perhaps not. But your point seems to be false (see above), unless by "public office" you mean some specific offices (a small percentage of all government jobs)", I should have said "Perhaps not. But your point seems to be false (see above), unless by "office" you mean some specific offices (a small percentage of all government jobs)".
Also, I used "government job" to mean "public job", but the latter would be more precise I think, so maybe I actually should have said "Perhaps not. But your point seems to be false (see above), unless by "office" you mean some specific offices (a small percentage of all public jobs)"

My bad. However, the main point remains. Granted, you may want to exclude many jobs from the count. Maybe if you could define "office" more precisely, that would be helpful.

 

[Underseer]

The money was important. In Alabama, you don’t get to mete out justice without spending millions of dollars. I had my money; my opponent had his. The race for dollars reached new heights when a poll showed that I had a real chance of winning despite being a Democrat and the underdog, leading my opponent and his supporters to significantly increase their fundraising. And I had to answer in the best way I could—by trying to raise more money—or risk falling woefully behind. The amounts are utterly obscene.

In Alabama, would-be judges are allowed to ask for money directly. We can make calls not just to the usual friends and family but to lawyers who have appeared before us, lawyers who are likely to appear before us, officials with companies who may very well have interests before the court. And I did.

Where do you draw the line? If you ask for money from lawyers who appear in your court, it’s untenable for you. It’s also untenable for them. I may not have directly asked for money or collected the check, but in my heated campaign to become chief justice, I did reach out to everyone and anyone I could.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...lections-fundraising-115503.html#.VPicEvnF-m4

Should judges be elected? Is it undemocratic to not have them elected and held directly accountable to the public in that manner, or does it compromise their independence too much?

So rich people and large corporations (including foreign corporations) are buying off any politicians who have to run for office, and you think the problem is that we allow elections in the first place?

Are you a libertarian or a conservative? I understand that they are completely different and not at all the same thing, but you have to be one of the two to have offered an argument like this.

 

[dismal]

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.

Like surgeons? We should put the selection of surgeons up for a democratic vote too, right?

You are being dogmatic, and dogmatism (as always) leads to stupid positions that a rational approach would not cause anyone to take.

You can't think of any reason why we do not elect surgeons? How about because they are not government officials?

I think you need to brush up on your 8th grade social studies and try again.

Why do we have democracy at all?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You can't think of any reason why we do not elect surgeons? How about because they are not government officials?

I think you need to brush up on your 8th grade social studies and try again.

Why do we have democracy at all?

dismal,

Could you please address my points?
Could you please explain who - among those who work for the state - count as a "government official", and what counts as a "representative democracy"?

A list of a dozen countries that count (if you consider there are a dozen; if not, a full list) would help. Also, a list of 12 different positions that qualify as "government official" (i.e., the person holding each would qualify) would help (or a full list if you don't think there are a dozen).

For example, which of the following qualifies as a representative democracy, in your view? (at least, the ones you know well enough among those).

1. US.
2. UK.
3. Australia.
4. Canada.
5. France.
6. Germany.
7. Norway.
8. Sweden.
9. Austria.
10. Denmark.
11. The Netherlands.
12. Italy.
13. Poland.
14. Uruguay.
15. Chile.
16. Spain.
17. Japan.
18. Iceland.
19. Ireland.
20. Greece.
21. India.
22. Israel.
23. Brazil.
24. South Africa.
25. Uganda.

Which of the following positions are "government officials", in your view?


1. Police and military officers.
2. Police chief.
3. Generals in the military.
4. Lawmakers.
5. Chief of government.
6. Chief of state (may overlap with 5).
7. Minister (or secretary, depending on terminology)) of defense.
8. Minister of health.
9. Minister of home affairs.
10. Minister of foreign affairs.
11. Supreme Court justice.
12. Appeal court judges.
13. Other judges.
14. Deans, headmasters, etc., in public universities.
15. Other professors in public universities.
16. Director of a public hospital.
17. Other doctors in public (i.e., non-private) hospitals.
18. Directors of other non-private enterprises (e.g., research facilities of different sorts).
19. Scientists who work in non-private research facilities.
20. Disciplinary committee in public universities, other schools, etc.
21. Military judges.

ETA: btw, I'm asking for clarification because:

a. You claimed "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."

b. You also said (in a reply to bilby): "You can't think of any reason why we do not elect surgeons? How about because they are not government officials?"

However, you did not reply to my reply to a. above, and you did not explain what you have in mind when you say "government officials", or which countries you have in mind when you make a claim about what is generally decided by voters in "representative democracies".

 

[dismal]

You can't think of any reason why we do not elect surgeons? How about because they are not government officials?

I think you need to brush up on your 8th grade social studies and try again.

Why do we have democracy at all?

dismal,

Could you please address my points?

I feel as if I have addressed your points as much as they are relevant to my points and attempted to explain why I don't think they are relevant when I feel they are not.

My answers don't change when you repeat your questions.

If your argument is that sometimes voters, in their infinite wisdom, could choose to delegate the selection of certain public officials to other elected public officials I don't disagree. They could.

But if they, in their infinite wisdom, decide to choose a certain type of elected official themselves why is that wrong? In democracy we defer to their wisdom.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

dismal,

Could you please address my points?

I feel as if I have addressed your points as much as they are relevant to my points and attempted to explain why I don't think they are relevant when I feel they are not.

My answers don't change when you repeat your questions.

If your argument is that sometimes voters, in their infinite wisdom, could choose to delegate the selection of certain public officials to other elected public officials I don't disagree. They could.

But if they, in their infinite wisdom, decide to choose a certain type of elected official themselves why is that wrong? In democracy we defer to their wisdom.

Sometimes, your pattern of replies seems to resemble that of some of your opponents (with regard to obscurity, goalpost moving, and changing the subject).
Your answers are not changed when I repeat my questions?
But you gave no answers to some of my questions - questions I asked after you ignored my points showing some of the errors in your posts.

Infinite wisdom?
No, my argument is nothing like that. My arguments are what I said. In particular, you claimed:

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 already pointed out that that claim is false, under reasonable constructions of "representative democracy" and "office". In fact, who holds most offices in at least nearly all representative democracies are not decided by voters. And that's not because voters delegated the choice. There was never a vote on any delegation in the first place.
Moreover, even when there are elections, usually majority of voters in a country is not the rule, and moreover, rules heavily constrain who voters are allowed to elect.

I pointed out all of that earlier. But you ignored it. Then, despite repeated attempts on my part, you refused to explain which countries count as "representative democracy". I asked you to name 12, or less if you believe there aren't 12. But you didn't. I even gave you a list, so you only had to say "yes" or "no", in each case. But you refused to do so.

Additionally, you refused to explain what public jobs count as "hold an office". You just keep refusing to explain your claim.

 

[dismal]

I feel as if I have addressed your points as much as they are relevant to my points and attempted to explain why I don't think they are relevant when I feel they are not.

My answers don't change when you repeat your questions.

If your argument is that sometimes voters, in their infinite wisdom, could choose to delegate the selection of certain public officials to other elected public officials I don't disagree. They could.

But if they, in their infinite wisdom, decide to choose a certain type of elected official themselves why is that wrong? In democracy we defer to their wisdom.

Sometimes, your pattern of replies seems to resemble that of some of your opponents (with regard to obscurity, goalpost moving, and changing the subject).
Your answers are not changed when I repeat my questions?
But you gave no answers to some of my questions - questions I asked after you ignored my points showing the errors in your posts.

I have really tried to answer your questions, or at least clarify my positions or explain why I didn't think your questions were relevant when your questions did not seem relevant to them.

At this point, I'm not even sure what we are disagreeing about.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

maybe a compromise would be to have laywers vote for judges and not the general public? You'd still have some politics going amongst the lawyers, and maybe some campaigning etc, but it would be at a lesser level, and you'd still get to say they are held accountable to "the public" since anybody can become a lawyer (at least in theory).

 

[Axulus]

maybe a compromise would be to have laywers vote for judges and not the general public? You'd still have some politics going amongst the lawyers, and maybe some campaigning etc, but it would be at a lesser level, and you'd still get to say they are held accountable to "the public" since anybody can become a lawyer (at least in theory).

Bad idea - lawyers have their own special interests. They'd vote for judges likely to be friendly to them - such as being more likely to grant big civil awards (bigger payout for the plaintiff lawyer, greater need for the defendant to hire really expensive lawyers for more hours).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

At this point, I'm not even sure what we are disagreeing about.

Several things over the thread. But just to (try to) get at least one exchange going, let's consider the following:

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 disagree with the claim in representative democracies what sort of people we want to hold an office is an issue that is generally decided by voters.
So, I claim "No, that's not an issue that is generally decided by voters." That's a clear disagreement, right? (unless the "we want" in your claim is crucial. Who's "we"?)

In fact, I say that under reasonable constructions of "office" and "representative democracy", in the case of most offices in at least nearly all or all representative democracies, the matter is not decided by voters. And that's not because voters delegated the choice. There was never a vote on any delegation in the first place. There was no delegation. The matter is not and never was an issue decided by voters.
Moreover, even when there are elections, usually majority of voters in a country is not the rule, and additionally, rules heavily constrain who voters are allowed to elect, etc.

I already gave examples. But since we disagree, maybe you could explain which countries you count as "representative democracy" and what counts as an "office"? Or could you let me know why I'm in error?

 

[dismal]

Several things over the thread. But just to (try to) get at least one exchange going, let's consider the following:

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 disagree with the claim in representative democracies what sort of people we want to hold an office is an issue that is generally decided by voters.
So, I claim "No, that's not an issue that is generally decided by voters." That's a clear disagreement, right? (unless the "we want" in your claim is crucial. Who's "we"?)

In fact, I say that under reasonable constructions of "office" and "representative democracy", in the case of most offices in at least nearly all or all representative democracies, the matter is not decided by voters. And that's not because voters delegated the choice. There was never a vote on any delegation in the first place. There was no delegation. The matter is not and never was an issue decided by voters.
Moreover, even when there are elections, usually majority of voters in a country is not the rule, and additionally, rules heavily constrain who voters are allowed to elect, etc.

I already gave examples. But since we disagree, maybe you could explain which countries you count as "representative democracy" and what counts as an "office"? Or could you let me know why I'm in error?

Do you agree that at the lowest level everything in a democracy is decided by the voters?

If there is a Constitution it is either decided on by voters or ratified by representatives elected by voters?

Voters may elect the dog catcher directly but if there is some task force to choose the best dog catcher that task force is either elected by voters, or chosen by people who were elected by voters, or chosen by people who were chosen by people who were elected by voters?

And that whatever our specific means we follow to choose a dog catcher, it was either determined in something like the Constitution that was either adopted by voters or ratified by people who were elected by voters, or if the Constitution was silent on the process for naming dog catchers the process was created in some law that was passed by representatives who were elected by voters?

Do you agree that in a democracy we can take any decision, any process to make decisions, or any official charged with making decisions and if we peel back the onion enough layers at some point we will find this authority was established by voters?

 

[bleubird]

How many judges run unopposed?I can not remember the last time I saw computation in a judge election.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Do you agree that at the lowest level everything in a democracy is decided by the voters?

What do you mean by "lowest level"?

If there is a Constitution it is either decided on by voters or ratified by representatives elected by voters?

Those are two different things - decided on by voters or ratified by representatives elected by voters. In fact, even if they're called "representatives", they may well not represent the views of the majority of voters, who do not decide the voting rules (i.e., how to elect those representatives), or the Constitution-approving powers the representatives would have, or even what constitutional text the represenatives will support.

Leaving that aside, different constitutions were adopted in different fashions so it depends on the country, but usually, the decision was not made by any present-day voters. Instead, present-day voters were born when there was already a Constitution in place. Granted, some voters had some degree of choice in the past, at least in many cases, but that is not the same.

Voters may elect the dog catcher directly but if there is some task force to choose the best dog catcher that task force is either elected by voters, or chosen by people who were elected by voters, or chosen by people who were chosen by people who were elected by voters?

If you include all of that, that covers many more jobs of course. However, that does not indicate any actual choice on the part of voters, and it's not what we were discussing.

And that whatever our specific means we follow to choose a dog catcher, it was either determined in something like the Constitution that was either adopted by voters or ratified by people who were elected by voters, or if the Constitution was silent on the process for naming dog catchers the process was created in some law that was passed by representatives who were elected by voters?

If by "voters", you do not mean "present-day voters", but any voters count at any time count, that seems more probable. But I'm not sure what your point is. The voters in question may well be all long dead, they may have excluded women, non-White men, and even those voters may well have had very little choice on the matter. Perhaps they could at most vote for representatives according to voting rules they (the voters) did not chose or approved earlier. And those representatives wouldn't have to actually represent the opinion of a majority of voters.

Do you agree that in a democracy we can take any decision, any process to make decisions, or any official charged with making decisions and if we peel back the onion enough layers at some point we will find this authority was established by voters?

And by "voters" you don't mean present-day voters, but someone who voted at some time? And by "peel back" you include "back in time"? If you don't include "back in time", the answer is obviously "no, I don't agree, since it's obviously false".

But even if you include "back in time", the answer seems to be negative. Consider the process of ratification of the Basic Law in Germany.
How was it established by voters, directly or indirectly?
Yes, there were some elections. But the choice of who gets to vote and for what, with what authority, etc., was not made by voters.

More generally, if a Constitution was adopted by some representatives of some voters, then how was the authority of the representatives, or the voting procedure, established by voters?
If it was established by some voters in some vote V, let's then consider V, and the procedure for making choices in that context (perhaps, centuries ago, but you're not talking about present-day voters), including the authority of some people to be voters. Was it established also by voters in some vote V2?
If so, then consider the V2, and the procedure, etc.

 

[bilby]

Like surgeons? We should put the selection of surgeons up for a democratic vote too, right?

You are being dogmatic, and dogmatism (as always) leads to stupid positions that a rational approach would not cause anyone to take.

You can't think of any reason why we do not elect surgeons? How about because they are not government officials?

Really? You think that's the reason why surgeons are not elected? Wow. No wonder US conservatives oppose UHC.

(It's OK; even in the British NHS, surgeons are not elected by a democratic vote amongst the general public).

I can think of a lot of reasons not to elect surgeons; and the vast majority of those reasons also apply to the selection of judges.

By the way, in many countries (including both of those where I am a citizen), we don't elect our executive branch OR our judicial branch - only the legislature is elected by the people. This does not seem to make either place noticeably less well governed than the USA.

Why do YOU think we have democracy?

 

[dismal]

You can't think of any reason why we do not elect surgeons? How about because they are not government officials?

Really? You think that's the reason why surgeons are not elected? Wow. No wonder US conservatives oppose UHC.

(It's OK; even in the British NHS, surgeons are not elected by a democratic vote amongst the general public).

I can think of a lot of reasons not to elect surgeons; and the vast majority of those reasons also apply to the selection of judges.

By the way, in many countries (including both of those where I am a citizen), we don't elect our executive branch OR our judicial branch - only the legislature is elected by the people. This does not seem to make either place noticeably less well governed than the USA.

Why do YOU think we have democracy?

Most of us, when we go to a doctor, do so in a private capacity.

If we did make surgeons government officials, for reasons I can't imagine, we would either elect them or elect people that appointed them in some sort of process voters approved.