Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by viper32cm, Aug 6, 2007.
In Georgia, state and superior court judges, and magistrate judges, juvenile judges, etc. are elected. They usually get APPOINTED by the governor to begin their carreers as judges, since they often step-in to a vacancy left by the prior judge in that court, but after that they must be elected by the people.
So our judges can be held accountable to the public through the use of the ballot box.
Federal judges are appointed for life, unless they really mess up and get removed from office for extremely bad behavior. That's intended to insulate them from political pressure and let them make the "right" decision, which may not be the "popular" decision with the masses.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems, but in theory the people are in a better position to decide whether a judge is worthy to hold that position than a single politician is. If the people were well-informed about judicial candidates (they're not) and if various professional standards organization encouraged judges to discuss their philosophy and beliefs with the public (they don't).
I got excited when I thought about the possibilities that this might have for the Federal bench.
Throw the entire 9th Circuit in jail*
*Except for Kozinsky