June 30, 2011

Scott Walker said what?

Walker also said "long-term, it's worth looking at" an appointed Supreme Court, instead of an elected one, in Wisconsin. — J-S
Holy shit. Well as long as it's not Walker doing the nominating. I wonder what judges in other jurisdictions are thinking when they encounter a citation to a recent Wis. S. Ct. decision in the briefs to their courts. Probably less persuaded by it if they've been reading the newspapers too.


Mike said...

First principles. An independent and impartial judiciary is a cornerstone of civilization. The whole point of a court is that it is authoritative and that all parties recognize that and respect its decisions. Otherwise there is chaos, chronic violence, blood feuds, vigilantism, private score settling. It is a big deal when judges act like politicians without pretense and attempt to intimidate their colleagues. That is the law of the jungle.

illusory tenant said...

At least removing judicial selection from the electoral process might encourage more capable aspirants who otherwise refuse to subject themselves to what have become thoroughly dishonorable election campaigns. And it needn't be the governor who makes the selection; in fact it would be better if the governor was removed from the process.

Anonymous said...

Appointing justices wouldn't prevent a whacko-ideologue governor from trying to pack the court, but it would be better than letting voters be persuaded by millions of dollars of special interest attack ads. And, it's not a sure thing that state Senate confirmation of a justice would be knee-jerk. Finally, the governor would have to defend himself or herself against any nomination that didn't pass muster from the legal community.