Maintaining judicial independence

By Karen Reisner
karen@fillmorecountyjournal.com

Fri, Nov 16th, 2012
Posted in All Commentary

Comments

By Karen Reisner

With the long election process behind us, the onset of election fatigue has long ago afflicted most of us. However, I was reminded, when I turned my ballot over to look at the back while voting, that I was not prepared to vote for judges. When I marked my choices for the various federal, state, local offices, and proposed constitutional amendments, I felt adequately informed. When I looked through the various judge races, I was faced with my ignorance as to which judge candidates would be most qualified in those contested races. Frankly, because of that ignorance, I denied myself the right to vote for any judge as my vote would have been arbitrary and uninformed. In my opinion, judges should be allowed to rise above politics as much as possible. This is made more difficult by making them stand for election.

In Minnesota District Court judges serve a six-year term, and Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges serve a four-year term. So they are up for reelection every four or six years if they choose to run again. Prior to 2002, a judge or judicial candidate was prohibited from seeking or accepting political endorsements, discussing their views on controversial issues or soliciting campaign funds. After rulings of the US Supreme Court and the Eighth District Court of Appeals, these limitations were taken away as the courts cited First Amendment protections. These rulings have made judicial elections even more political.

I question whether it would not better preserve judicial independence if judges were recommended through a selection process and then appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state senate, similar to the process at the federal level. This too will have political pitfalls, but it may be a better option. Thirty-nine states have a process to select their judges leaving the electorate with the final say. A judge’s job is primarily to interpret the law without the influences of politics or public opinion. They should be as independent of politics as possible. The wishes of the public could conflict with interpretation of the law and the constitution.

Judges need to remain objective and impartial while interpreting the laws that are on the books. Their opinions should not be shaded by the electorate. This is the purpose of the checks and balances imposed by the three branches of government. Our forefathers did not intend for judges to be elected. Legislators write .....
[Read the Rest]

The vital issue congress won’t address

By Lee Hamilton

Fri, Nov 16th, 2012
Posted in All Commentary

Comments

By Lee Hamilton With the elections over, Congress faces a full plate of tough issues when it reconvenes. There will be a lot of talk about fiscal matters, “grand bargains,” and sorting out party caucuses. But there’s one vitally important que .....
[Read the Rest]

Feifdoms and warlords

By Col. Stan Gudmundson

Fri, Nov 9th, 2012
Posted in All Commentary

Comment(1)

By Col. Stan Gudmundson By the time this letter is printed we shall know who will be president for the next four years. If it is Romney then this letter will help to reaffirm why he was elected. If it is Obama then it will help explain why the majo .....
[Read the Rest]