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

[Axulus]

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?

 

[laughing dog]

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?

No.

Is it undemocratic to not have them elected and held directly accountable to the public in that manner?

Yes.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that the US is one of the only places in the Western world where judges are elected. Is there some kind of problem with judicial accountability in any of those other countries? I'm not aware of it being an issue.

Judges need to be held accountable, but accountable to trained professionals who understand the intricacies of the legal system. They shouldn't be fundraising and finding themselves beholden to special interests.

 

[KeepTalking]

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?

Democratic election campaigns do not have to be funded by private donors. They can be publicly funded. We really can have the best of both worlds, democratically elected judges (and other public offices) who are not beholden to private donors.

 

[ronburgundy]

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?

Democratic election campaigns do not have to be funded by private donors. They can be publicly funded. We really can have the best of both worlds, democratically elected judges (and other public offices) who are not beholden to private donors.

Not that easy. Public funds do not eliminate private funds, which would swamp the public one's and make them irrelevant. Any form of reference to or discussion about candidates in any forum (including the news) would create de facto avenues for massive private funding. The only way to get rid of private funding is to completely outlawed any and all speech about the candidates, except for commercials, debates, mailings funded directly by public funds.

The solution is not easy, because appointed judges is just as bad, if appointed by elected officials. To get around the corruption of private funding would require appointment by their professional peers in the relevant fields. In the case of Judges, that should be some combination of academics and professionals in law and perhaps political science. I think this should definitely be the process for appointments to things like national science foundations, departments of education, etc., where the job is to execute the consensus intellectual standards of the relevant research communities. I am more uncertain about judges, but one could argue that this is also the job of a judge, and how the lay populace feel about him/her is not relevant.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have no business voting for a judge. I am not qualified to justify voting one over the other. It is one of the few things I don't vote on (local judges). I do vote for the Supreme Court in Ohio because the stakes are higher. But I don't think we should vote for either.

 

[KeepTalking]

Democratic election campaigns do not have to be funded by private donors. They can be publicly funded. We really can have the best of both worlds, democratically elected judges (and other public offices) who are not beholden to private donors.

Not that easy. Public funds do not eliminate private funds, which would swamp the public one's and make them irrelevant. Any form of reference to or discussion about candidates in any forum (including the news) would create de facto avenues for massive private funding. The only way to get rid of private funding is to completely outlawed any and all speech about the candidates, except for commercials, debates, mailings funded directly by public funds.

It definitely would not be easy. Even provided a solution to remove all private funds from the process, the political will to actually do it is not likely to materialize any time soon. Too many vested interests profit from the current system. That doesn't mean it can't be done, or that we shouldn't endeavor to do it.

The solution is not easy, because appointed judges is just as bad, if appointed by elected officials. To get around the corruption of private funding would require appointment by their professional peers in the relevant fields. In the case of Judges, that should be some combination of academics and professionals in law and perhaps political science. I think this should definitely be the process for appointments to things like national science foundations, departments of education, etc., where the job is to execute the consensus intellectual standards of the relevant research communities. I am more uncertain about judges, but one could argue that this is also the job of a judge, and how the lay populace feel about him/her is not relevant.

If you are going to have appointed judges, that would be the way to do it. Once again, however, the political will is lacking because of the current vested interests. The republic may have to crash and burn before any real meaningful reform of our political processes is realized.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think that the US is one of the only places in the Western world where judges are elected. Is there some kind of problem with judicial accountability in any of those other countries? I'm not aware of it being an issue.

Judges need to be held accountable, but accountable to trained professionals who understand the intricacies of the legal system. They shouldn't be fundraising and finding themselves beholden to special interests.

Yeah. The government is way too lax in the oversight of professionals but the electorate is worse.

A simple example locally: The city has made several attempts to regulate the distributors of prostitute ads. Again and again the attempted to regulate based on content. The laws would be challenged, local judges (elected) would always uphold them, the first time it hit a federal (appointed) judge they would be struck down as they were clearly unconstitutional. The elected judges would never strike down a popular (they are quite a litter issue--people see what the ad is and throw it down in disgust, not to mention that they are pushy) but unconstitutional law.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that the US is one of the only places in the Western world where judges are elected. Is there some kind of problem with judicial accountability in any of those other countries? I'm not aware of it being an issue.

Judges need to be held accountable, but accountable to trained professionals who understand the intricacies of the legal system. They shouldn't be fundraising and finding themselves beholden to special interests.

Yeah. The government is way too lax in the oversight of professionals but the electorate is worse.

A simple example locally: The city has made several attempts to regulate the distributors of prostitute ads. Again and again the attempted to regulate based on content. The laws would be challenged, local judges (elected) would always uphold them, the first time it hit a federal (appointed) judge they would be struck down as they were clearly unconstitutional. The elected judges would never strike down a popular (they are quite a litter issue--people see what the ad is and throw it down in disgust, not to mention that they are pushy) but unconstitutional law.

Not to derail the thread too much, but why are they unconstitutional? As I understand it, prostitution is illegal in Nevada except in that one little area outside of Vegas, so it would seem to me that the city is within their authority to ban the advertisement of illegal services.

 

[Bomb#20]

Democratic election campaigns do not have to be funded by private donors. They can be publicly funded. We really can have the best of both worlds, democratically elected judges (and other public offices) who are not beholden to private donors.

Not that easy. Public funds do not eliminate private funds, which would swamp the public one's and make them irrelevant. Any form of reference to or discussion about candidates in any forum (including the news) would create de facto avenues for massive private funding. The only way to get rid of private funding is to completely outlawed any and all speech about the candidates, except for commercials, debates, mailings funded directly by public funds.

It definitely would not be easy. Even provided a solution to remove all private funds from the process, the political will to actually do it is not likely to materialize any time soon. Too many vested interests profit from the current system. That doesn't mean it can't be done, or that we shouldn't endeavor to do it.

Let's say you feel Judge Moore should be defeated in his reelection bid because he upheld a blatantly unconstitutional law, and you feel that's a good reason for people not to vote for him. So you write a letter to his opponents urging them to include this argument in commercials and debates and mailings, which will be funded directly by public funds. They all choose not to do so because they feel their own strategy of harping on Judge Moore's little-known foot fetish is a better use of their limited funds. So you write a letter directly to the public elections committee in charge of disbursing public funds and ask for a grant to get your message out. They choose not to grant you any money because the public fund for that election has already been exhausted by grants to Moore and his opponents. So, at your wits end, you write out your cogent legal argument, you run it through your photocopier a few hundred times, and you tape your argument up all over town on bulletin boards and telephone poles and so forth, wherever it's legal for people to put up public notices.

So are you seriously suggesting that we should endeavor to pass a law making it a crime for you to put up those notices, on the grounds that you paid for the photocopier paper yourself instead of the public funding agency paying for it?

 

[KeepTalking]

Democratic election campaigns do not have to be funded by private donors. They can be publicly funded. We really can have the best of both worlds, democratically elected judges (and other public offices) who are not beholden to private donors.

Not that easy. Public funds do not eliminate private funds, which would swamp the public one's and make them irrelevant. Any form of reference to or discussion about candidates in any forum (including the news) would create de facto avenues for massive private funding. The only way to get rid of private funding is to completely outlawed any and all speech about the candidates, except for commercials, debates, mailings funded directly by public funds.

It definitely would not be easy. Even provided a solution to remove all private funds from the process, the political will to actually do it is not likely to materialize any time soon. Too many vested interests profit from the current system. That doesn't mean it can't be done, or that we shouldn't endeavor to do it.

Let's say you feel Judge Moore should be defeated in his reelection bid because he upheld a blatantly unconstitutional law, and you feel that's a good reason for people not to vote for him. So you write a letter to his opponents urging them to include this argument in commercials and debates and mailings, which will be funded directly by public funds. They all choose not to do so because they feel their own strategy of harping on Judge Moore's little-known foot fetish is a better use of their limited funds. So you write a letter directly to the public elections committee in charge of disbursing public funds and ask for a grant to get your message out. They choose not to grant you any money because the public fund for that election has already been exhausted by grants to Moore and his opponents. So, at your wits end, you write out your cogent legal argument, you run it through your photocopier a few hundred times, and you tape your argument up all over town on bulletin boards and telephone poles and so forth, wherever it's legal for people to put up public notices.

So are you seriously suggesting that we should endeavor to pass a law making it a crime for you to put up those notices, on the grounds that you paid for the photocopier paper yourself instead of the public funding agency paying for it?

I am pretty sure that is an argument you just concocted, not one that I ever put forward. So no, I am not suggesting that, seriously or otherwise.

 

[laughing dog]

The solution is not easy, because appointed judges is just as bad, if appointed by elected officials.

Is this your opinion, or is there some disinterested evidence to that effect?

To get around the corruption of private funding would require appointment by their professional peers in the relevant fields. In the case of Judges, that should be some combination of academics and professionals in law and perhaps political science. I think this should definitely be the process for appointments to things like national science foundations, departments of education, etc., where the job is to execute the consensus intellectual standards of the relevant research communities. I am more uncertain about judges, but one could argue that this is also the job of a judge, and how the lay populace feel about him/her is not relevant.

I don't see how any appointment process by humans evades the potential for corruption.

 

[arkirk]

I think that the US is one of the only places in the Western world where judges are elected. Is there some kind of problem with judicial accountability in any of those other countries? I'm not aware of it being an issue.

Judges need to be held accountable, but accountable to trained professionals who understand the intricacies of the legal system. They shouldn't be fundraising and finding themselves beholden to special interests.

Doesn't that just transfer the problem to individuals with standards that may be arbitrary and unfair to the public. I think they NEED TO BE ELECTED and given the minimum powers necessary to provide useful inputs to society. In California, where we have so many judges, most of them run unopposed. The electoral process is completely broken in this regard. I do not ever vote for any judge who is the only one on the ballot. To most people it is a totally mysterious process how they get on the ballot in the first place. Our prisons are still bulging at the seams and yet we seem to have not enough of these mysterious people to handle legal cases in anything like a timely or fair manner...and no guarantee they are fair. Judicial elections should be contested affairs, financed with public funds.

Despite the opacity of our legislative and executive branches, the legal branch of our government is the most invisible and the least understood of all our institutions. It is for all intents and purposes, a private elite club of players, only rarely in the public spotlight.

 

[Bomb#20]

...
So are you seriously suggesting that we should endeavor to pass a law making it a crime for you to put up those notices, on the grounds that you paid for the photocopier paper yourself instead of the public funding agency paying for it?

I am pretty sure that is an argument you just concocted, not one that I ever put forward. So no, I am not suggesting that, seriously or otherwise.

So what exactly are you suggesting we do in our endeavor to get rid of private funding, if your intent is to have it remain legal to spend one's private funds on the process?

 

[fromderinside]

I have no business voting for a judge. I am not qualified to justify voting one over the other. It is one of the few things I don't vote on (local judges). I do vote for the Supreme Court in Ohio because the stakes are higher. But I don't think we should vote for either.

You are right except if they are on the ballot it is your responsibility to find out about them and to vote.

On the other hand, consider that Chief Justice Earl Warren wasn't taken from the ranks of Law professionals nor appointed by them.

By having judges elected we get what we want. We get judges who put their life experience before either the law or the constitution when they decide. Corrupt? So are we. narrow minded. We're that too. Very very conservative? Look at us we're always right of center sometimes far right of center. There's a thread in US governance that yearns for a King. We elect the famous, the hero, the bad guy, the pretty one, the rich one, the savior.

 

[ronburgundy]

Is this your opinion, or is there some disinterested evidence to that effect?

There is no reason to think it would be any better. The private funds would just as much determine the judges, just mediated by first determining the elected officials that appoint them. If anything, it is likely worse to have them appointed by politicians. The politicians will use their bribed biases to determine who is even put up for consideration, plus who gets it. At least with a direct public election of judges, it is more likely that a candidate who isn't bought by big money will get on the ballot, even if it is harder for them to win.

To get around the corruption of private funding would require appointment by their professional peers in the relevant fields. In the case of Judges, that should be some combination of academics and professionals in law and perhaps political science. I think this should definitely be the process for appointments to things like national science foundations, departments of education, etc., where the job is to execute the consensus intellectual standards of the relevant research communities. I am more uncertain about judges, but one could argue that this is also the job of a judge, and how the lay populace feel about him/her is not relevant.

I don't see how any appointment process by humans evades the potential for corruption.

Do you think that the recommendations of national science organizations regarding climate change are as corrupted or corruptible as the recommendations of a Senate subcommittee?
If you do, then your incorrect. The ability of the decision makers to personally profit off of a appointing an inferior but biased candidate determines the level of corruption. Academics do not depend upon corporate interests nearly as directly an to the extent that politicians do. Also, academics profit mostly off of attacking the invalidity of others claims in their field. That is how publications, promotions, and jobs are obtained. This makes corruption of a whole panel of academics in favor of the same invalid choice very unlikely. The system within which academics operate makes such corruption less rewarded, thus less likely.

 

[ronburgundy]

Not that easy. Public funds do not eliminate private funds, which would swamp the public one's and make them irrelevant. Any form of reference to or discussion about candidates in any forum (including the news) would create de facto avenues for massive private funding. The only way to get rid of private funding is to completely outlawed any and all speech about the candidates, except for commercials, debates, mailings funded directly by public funds.

It definitely would not be easy. Even provided a solution to remove all private funds from the process, the political will to actually do it is not likely to materialize any time soon. Too many vested interests profit from the current system. That doesn't mean it can't be done, or that we shouldn't endeavor to do it.

I agree there is no will for such restrictions, but I am not sure that is a bad thing, because it would all but destroy the principle of free speech. It would require making it illegal for people to publicly express any thoughts about any candidates or issues strongly tied to them. Anything short of that will allow money interests to create a system to funnel money in ways that still wind up determining the election.

The solution is not easy, because appointed judges is just as bad, if appointed by elected officials. To get around the corruption of private funding would require appointment by their professional peers in the relevant fields. In the case of Judges, that should be some combination of academics and professionals in law and perhaps political science. I think this should definitely be the process for appointments to things like national science foundations, departments of education, etc., where the job is to execute the consensus intellectual standards of the relevant research communities. I am more uncertain about judges, but one could argue that this is also the job of a judge, and how the lay populace feel about him/her is not relevant.

If you are going to have appointed judges, that would be the way to do it. Once again, however, the political will is lacking because of the current vested interests. The republic may have to crash and burn before any real meaningful reform of our political processes is realized.

I agree with that, and in this case think the lack of will is a negative thing, as it may be the best solution to election corruption without sacrificing something as vital to liberty as free speech.

 

[arkirk]

Perhaps it is wrong headed to expect things to be fixed by having the government crash and burn...and we get to start again. These private entities and corporations with all their non governmental power could possibly totally engineer the structure of the new government. They still have all the factories, all the oil wells, all the security systems etc. (even their own police). While the average Joe on the street would find himself bereft of any power to input the configuration of the new system. He would be living in a world of power vacuums and merely be struggling to keep eating. Right wing think tanks may have the plans already on the drawing board or even worse...on the shelf.

This seems to be the conditions the Libertarians are seeking.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no reason to think it would be any better. ..

Of course there is. The amount of private money that might determine judgeships would be lower. And it is necessarily the case that politicians would use their biases.

Do you think that the recommendations of national science organizations regarding climate change are as corrupted or corruptible as the recommendations of a Senate subcommittee?
If you do, then your incorrect.

Because you say so?

The ability of the decision makers to personally profit off of a appointing an inferior but biased candidate determines the level of corruption. Academics do not depend upon corporate interests nearly as directly an to the extent that politicians do. Also, academics profit mostly off of attacking the invalidity of others claims in their field. That is how publications, promotions, and jobs are obtained. This makes corruption of a whole panel of academics in favor of the same invalid choice very unlikely. The system within which academics operate makes such corruption less rewarded, thus less likely.

You live in a fantasy land. Academics are people and are prone to the same vices and temptations.

 

[bilby]

I have no business voting for a judge. I am not qualified to justify voting one over the other. It is one of the few things I don't vote on (local judges). I do vote for the Supreme Court in Ohio because the stakes are higher. But I don't think we should vote for either.

You are right except if they are on the ballot it is your responsibility to find out about them and to vote.

On the other hand, consider that Chief Justice Earl Warren wasn't taken from the ranks of Law professionals nor appointed by them.

By having judges elected we get what we want. We get judges who put their life experience before either the law or the constitution when they decide. Corrupt? So are we. narrow minded. We're that too. Very very conservative? Look at us we're always right of center sometimes far right of center. There's a thread in US governance that yearns for a King. We elect the famous, the hero, the bad guy, the pretty one, the rich one, the savior.

That's hardly surprising when you consider that most of the participants in US governance subscribe to an irrational belief system crafted to achieve that exact yearning in the populace.

The K in KJV is there for a reason. Christianity is, above all else, a doctrine of obedience to authority, and a rationale for accepting the rule of a tyrant as not only acceptable, but as the fundamental nature of all things.