Submitted 5 days ago by DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works to [deleted]
Electing judges doesn’t really make sense to me. Are people supposed to dig up every court case they’ve ruled on? (Or for prospective new judges, every case they’ve represented in as a lawyer?)
(I’m in USA Btw; Does any other country even “elect” judges? Such a weird thing IMO.)
I live in a small town, so everyone at least knows who both judges in town are. 10 years ago one had a decent reputation, the other everyone hated because he was just a bully in the courtroom. He was suspended by the state for a year back in 2021 because he started harassing a woman at the back of the court room who was minding her own business, commenting about her brother who OD’ed the week before, and then held her in contempt of court for not submitting to a drug test.
Anyway, when his suspension was up he ran for his vacant seat to try and get his pension back. So I joyfully voted against that asshole and was very satisfied to see him get absolutely clobbered since everyone in town hated him.
We don’t elect judges in France, it seems weird. And yes they are supposed to be neutral, even if they are supposedly left-leaning in France for some reason (I would expect the opposite actually with lawyers being on the left to protect people).
So, you can see how they’ve made rulings on various topics. All of that is public record.
What really happens is people make lists and say “we like this judge” for various interests, or like news agencies might give an overview of what they found on rulings, etc.
SCOTUS being appointed isn’t exactly the issue. It’s the fact that only the senate can give input, and since the senate favors the right wing, its composition is biased. House has no say in this, and that’s not very balanced.
Of course, studying the performance of individual judges is criminalized in France, so we have very limited ability to know about their individual performance. :)
It's a huge lie that judges are neutral, but some argue it's a necessary lie.
What the hell? That is very strange legislation.
My state provides judicial performance reports for each and every judge per judicial body. They are based on surveys responses from attorneys, peer judges/justices, jurors, witnesses, etc. They score legal ability, integrity, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, settlement performance, etc. The scores are Superior, Very Good, Satisfactory, Poor, or Unacceptable. It gets pretty in-depth. They also provide judge biographies and history.
We usually have a big voting party with some cordial friends and go through the performance reports together on our mail in ballots.
Is there any chance that the judges can “buy” their survey responses? E.g. if they pay off the people taking the survey? Or is it all totally anonymous?
(I’m not American, just curious)
One of my strategies for voting on judges is looking up who in my state appoints them. Do I trust that person to appoint reasonable judges or not? I vote to retain and dismiss judges accordingly.
If you can’t find any rulings that lean one way or the other. See if you see any vote for judge whoever signs on properties that fly trump flags or had such trumpy grumpies signs in the past. Then you know not to support that judge.
Any backers if there are any, searching their name online to see about controversial decisions.
And then I default to replacing them.
I agree that there really is no way for the layman to know. The states all vary as well. Meaning something like 10 states have partisan votes (party listed next to name in ballot). About 20 have non partisan, so they don’t list the party. Many have Yes/No retaining votes without listing a replacement, just decision to keep. Then some states have policies where the judge must be confirmed by the state Senate, and others approved by their state Congress. Beyond that, I don’t remember much, it is way to much for a person to keep up with and their should be independent bodies that evaluate performance/ judgements. I don’t know a perfect way to set it up though, as corruption is everywhere.
As far as I know, many of the judges Trump appointed during his first term are now making rulings against his interests - despite having been seen as “aligned” when appointed. So in other words: you can’t know. Just make sure they’re competent and fit for the task.
BossDj@lemm.ee 5 days ago
For judges, I mostly look for key backers. For example, teachers union shows support? I’m in. Moms for Liberty or anything with “Patriot”? Instant vote against. Or I read the voters pamphlet for dog whistles. If neither pan out, then I actually have to do research, ugh.
karpintero@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Yeah this has been the most reliable method for me. They’ll usually tout endorsements and those folks are usually easier to get a read on. Otherwise, try to find news stories or blue voter guides that mention them.
Hugin@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Same. Heritage Foundation involvement is another red flag.
tobis@lemm.ee 4 days ago
I was surprised how easy it is to settle on a candidate, to be honest. Once you filter out people including dog whistles in their bio, there usually isn’t much work left to do. I do feel bad though when I don’t do serious research on small time positions where there isn’t much separating candidates.