I think having the people no matter how apathetic and unintelligible having a say is better than no say. When judges act up enough to garner public derision they can be removed. When they are appointed they get a talking to for playing fast and loose with the law.
What? I thought a judge can do whatever they want. I mean in the federal realm any district judge can enjoin the entire country and declare any law unconstitutional at the district level. That's straight from the Article 3 of the Constitution, right? It's not? You mean the Courts gave itself the power to overrule the other branches? Oh, well, good thing that at the state level intermediate courts don't find laws unconstitutional unlike the federal circuits, which a single judge on first review does semi-regularly.
sure a judge can do whatever he wants but that doesn't mean that a different judge can't also do "whatever he wants" and say fuck you to this first decision
I read somewhere in some papers, written by some old dead white guy I am sure, that the federal system was exactly this. Congress was not supposed to have much power over the everyday lives of Americans, and it was their local elections that were supposed to be more important than some stupid person in the White House who twiddles his thumbs while waiting for Congress to pass a bill that was popular among the people (House of Representatives) and popular among the states (The Senate). I think there were a couple of Amendments that said something like that the people and the states have powers not enumerated. But, yeah, in the more interconnected world, doing things on the small scale to see if it works is too much trouble. I guess Americans just want to do everything on the national level or they aren't going to do it.
These are not "relatively minor setbacks". Having a cause dismissed from the bench is really bad. It's not just "You tried your best", it's "You didn't even show up for the game". I think Chupp is going to dismiss the rest of the causes as well, Ty certainly did a terrible job with his filings.
To add to this: even law twitter didn't think any bench dismissals were likely. The only people who mentioned it I remember seeing said 5% or less chance anything gets dismissed from the bench.
Care to expound on this lawsuit?
But then you get politicians as judges who are beholden to the special interests that give them money.
All elections have way too much money involved. If any reform is done, monetary reform is needed first and foremost. People like to scream about "dark money" and Citizens United decision in politics. They act as if before that got applied money and favors never were traded. We are deluding ourselves if we think money is not already involved in appointing judges now.
The problem is that the money will ALWAYS be there as long as the power is there. People will seek to have powerful interests intercede on their behalf, and will do whatever it takes to sway those interests' opinions in their favor.
