The Minneapolis Star Tribune explains the current debate in Minnesota as to how judges should be chosen.
Minnesotans for Impartial Courts proposed a system that would appoint judges and not give voters the power to elect them. Voters instead could vote to remove judges, but they would be put into the position by the governor not by the voters.
Read the article and then answer the following questions. Please connect the article specifically in your post.
1. Should judges be appointed or elected? Justify your opinion.
2. Would you support the amendment to change the state constitution to give voters the power to take off a judge and take away the power to vote for judges? Why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
58 comments:
I believe people should elect a judge into office. This is the traditional way of electing officials in America, so why change now? Maybe I don't want the President and congress deciding which judge is best for me!
I believe people should elect a judge into office. This is the traditional way of electing officials in America, so why change now? Maybe I don't want the President and congress deciding which judge is best for me!
I believe people should elect a judge into office. This is the traditional way of electing officials in America, so why change now? Maybe I don't want the President and congress deciding which judge is best for me!
There really is no good way to elect judges since hearing their opinions can hurt future court cases and not hearing their opinions means we're just picking them basically for their looks. We can't know anything about them, so just how they look or how their name looks on a ballot is how we decide who to vote for. So I believe there really is no good way to vote for judges. It's the peoples decision if a judge should be replaced, so they have a right to vote. The problem is, is that most don't know anything.
I think the new way to choose judges is a good idea. The voters that were picking the judges before knew nothing about the judges they were picking, they were just choosing favorites. If the governor were to choose all of the judges, he would choose them correctly, or would at least know more about the judges than everyday people do.
I agree with this proposal. This is the same sort of system that we have for the supreme court. Voters don't know who justices are, and even if they did know them, how can justices campaign or be partisan if they are supposed to be unbiased and have complete objectivity, if they state their stance on an issue, so that they get the vote of certain party members, they are destroying the objectivity of the court. If judges are appointed after a committee reviews who is most qualified, this will let people who actually know about judges and which judges are most fair choose the people that are being appointed. Also, if a judge makes a decision or many decisions that the public really doesn't like, they public has the chance to take off a judge. I do support this amendment because it is a safeguard against subjectivity and random voting for justices that people don't know anything about
1. I think that judges should be appointed, because in this way, everyone has power. If a judge is proving to be unsatisfactory, then the people have the power to remove him/her from office. I don't think this will happen often though, because I trust the government to elect a decent judge.
2. I would support that amendment to the constitution, because many Americans wouldn't know who to vote for in an election for a judge. However, it is much easier for them to know if they dislike a judge for a legible reason. If given the power to voice their opinions on a judge they are unhappy with and to vote to remove him/her from office, then I think they have a good amount of power.
I think the appointment and the new way are a good idea. As voters we know nothing about the judges we would be voting for, it would just be checking the box for which name looks the coolest. Since they cannot voice their opinions because that would make it impossible for them to judge on cases against their opinion, it would be a better idea to just appoint judges. The Governor would have a better idea and would be much better at appointing than we would voting,
I think the Governer should appoint a judge to the stand. People really dont know anything about the judges. If you want the best there is, let the State decide instead of citizens just circling the coolest name on the ballot.
If they would create the new Amendment it should work the same way as the Federal Government. The Governer should choose the judge and then the Senate will vote yes or no. And if the Senate aproves the judge would remain in office until they die or they choose to step down.
I think that people should have some say in electing a judge into office, because its the people who need to see the judges. The president and the congress should also help to decide if what the people decided was the right decision. The president and congress have more effect on the decision but the people who vote need to be able to use there opinion also. Other wise I don't think its that fair to the voters. It may effect the voters court cases in the future, just because the congress didn't think that our opinions matter as much as there's do.
I believe that judges should be appointed by the Governor. Then, voters could vote if they can continue with their job if they believe that the judge is doing a good job. I think it is for the Governor to appoint, after all we voted that person in to do that and then if any of their rulings are not in the interest of voters, it would be as simple as removing them with the right amount of people. To me, it doesn't seem like the voting public has a grasp on the things the State Supreme Court is ruling on. So if something does arise that is in the interest to many people, it could get taken care of.
I think an amendment to the state Constitution would be good. It would give voters a better way to voice their opinions if the State Supreme Court is some ting they have an interest in and not so much for the people it doesn't affect. It would make more sense to say, “So far, so good” or “I don't like the way this is going.” versus “I guess this person would do a good job.”
I am very partial on my opinion of how a judge should be elected or appointed. I somewhat believe it is a smart idea for the government to just decide who is appointed, because when many vote, they know nothing or little about any of the judges on the ballets. However, we are the ones who will be heard by the judges and it should be our choice to choose. I guess, I would not support the change in the state constitution because as stated in the article, "Judges decide everything from criminal sentences, to custody disputes, to constitutional questions about sensitive social issues." These decisions are huge and we should have a say in who will be elected to deal with these issues.
I don't think the government should be able to take the privilege of choosing our leaders away from us. We should always have a say in who is making decisions for our state. What if congress picks someone we don't agree with? this could effect the way we live. I fell like if we let them take voting away from us then they will continue to take our rights to speak away.
I agree with the idea of the governor appointing judges and the voters' being able to periodically say yes or no about whether to keep a judge in office. This would eliminate the problem of ballots filled with judicial races that no one knows anything about. As long as they go through the procedure of picking the best person for the job as they explained they would in the article then I don't see anything wrong with it. There is no way that judges can run for their position because they have to be fair and open minded on every issue. So even if a judge might have different opinions then you do, they have to decide on a case based on evidence and not what their personal preference is. Yes, I agree with the voters being able to vote whether they agree to the change in the constitution because we should have a say in how the courts get elected because they do have the final say and cases so it might directly effect us.
1. I think the new proposal for choosing judges would be beneficial. Voters have already elected their governor, which implies the citizens would make roughly the same decisions as the governor. Also, campaigning for aspiring judges could mean they make promises or express their political opinions which could change from case to case.
2. No, I don't think voters should have the power to take a judge out of authority. This would make the judges' decisions influenced by the fear of being kicked out. If their only job is to achieve justice without being affected by public ridicule, the court would stay in order.
I think that it is right for the president and the congress to appoint a judge because they pick the judges that would suit the job the best.
I don't think the people electing judges is a good idea since the people are completely in the dark as to what the judges stand for. It's probably best for the governor to appoint the judges. We chose the governor, right? A majority of Minnesotans wouldn't have chosen him if we didn't believe his views and choices were right.
I think that it is right for the president and the congress to appoint a judge because they pick the judges that would suit the job the best.
I personally believe that judges should be elected. I do not believe that they should be appointed by the governor. I understand that there are only a few who do actually vote on the ballots, but it is not fair to have the governor appoint judges. The United States is a democracy, and the people should be able to choose. Instead of taking away elected judges, they should make more of an effort to publicize judges in the media. I know they can not say their beliefs on certain issues such as abortion, but maybe even explaining to the society their experience would be beneficial. To be honest, I did not even know we elected our judges because it definitely is not an announcement.
I believe the first step to this problem, is to make it known to the public of their rights. It does not make sense to change an amendment, without trying something new with the same objective. I do not support the amendment change, and I believe this whole situation should be handled a different way. If this new strategy does not change the amount of votes, and does not influence Minnesotans to vote than maybe THEN we could discuss changing an amendment.
I think that it is right for the president and the congress to appoint a judge because they pick the judges that would suit the job the best.
I believe that judges should be appointed. Voters still have the right to reject a judge and have a new one appointed. Most voters don’t really know what judge to vote for because they can’t really campaign. People can’t choose a judge based on their views, so it really becomes based on who acts or looks a certain way. This allows the best person for the job to be given the job.
I would support it because it still gives voters power to take off the judge. It’s not like people’s opinions would be completely taken out of the decision. The judges would still have to be favorable in the eyes of the citizens, because there is still a chance the people would vote them off.
I think the Governer should appoint a judge to the stand. People really dont know anything about the judges. If you want the best there is, let the State decide instead of citizens just circling the coolest name on the ballot.
If they would create the new Amendment it should work the same way as the Federal Government. The Governer should choose the judge and then the Senate will vote yes or no. And if the Senate aproves the judge would remain in office until they die or they choose to step down.
I believe that judges should be appointed. Most of us don't know the judges at all, so why should we just randomly check a box on our ballots for someone who just sounds good. I understand that the judges most likely reflect the governor's opinions, but we're the ones who elected the governor. There would also be a commission that nominates the judges in the first place, to be picked by the governor. This group most likely has many different opinions and wouldn't pick judges believing the exact same things.
I would support the amendment to give voters the power to take or keep a judge. If there's a judge that doesn't turn out to be who the governor thought they were, then the people should decide whether or not that judge stays. This amendment would give the people some input on the judges. If the judges are doing a good job, then theres no reason for them to not be on it. If a judge isn't being fair, then the people automatically would have a say in if they get to stay. This amendment would save the time and knowledge for voting for judges at election time, and yet still give the people a say in what goes on in courts.
1. Should judges be appointed or elected? Justify your opinion.
I think that judges should be elected because although the voters don't really even know what they are voting for, it's more fair and equal than being appointed because the president will choose someone from his political party and issues would be much different. For example, if the president was completely against abortion and wanted it to completely abolished, then he would have a good chance at making that happen because he would pick others who believe in the same things as he. personally I think it is just a bad idea in general to let the judges be appointed instead of elected.
2. Would you support the amendment to change the state constitution to give voters the power to take off a judge and take away the power to vote for judges? Why?
No, I would not support the amendment to give voters power to take off a judge and take away the power to vote for judges because it's not fair that minnesotans have to go to court, so you'd think they'd want judges that they got to choose and not the president, it just seems like there would be a lot of issues. It's not fair to let the president choose the judges, because he most likely won't go to court, but everyone else in the country does.
I believe that judges should be elected. They should not be appointed because the governor would just appoint people who have the same views and opinions as him. This would be unfair because we the people would not have a say in who gets appointed. The decisions judges make effect us more than it effects the governor, therefore, we should be able to have a say in who gets appointed. I support the change to vote judges off but, I do not support the change to take away the power to vote for judges. I believe we should have both the power to vote off judges and the power to vote for new ones. Greg Wersal says there is no reason to adopt the proposal. I agree with him. If we were to adapt a new proposal, we should make it a proposal that we know will benefit us.
I believe that the judges should be elected but the people who are electing the judges should know who they are and what they stand for. If you are unaware of the views the person has that you are voting for then you shouldn't vote, but if more people don't vote for the judges the less fair it would be for the judges. Like the article says "voters' role would be to periodically make up or down decision about whether to keep a judge in office." If the voters knew about the judges running like we know about the presidential candidates running then there would be a fairer vote.
Yes, I would support the amendment. In the U.S. we hold a vote for everything, So why not the state judges? If we see that a judge is being biased or leaning one way on an issue then we should have the right to remove the judge and replace the judge with someone who will be impartial and listen to both sides of the story. " Would we stand for a minute the notion that the officials in charge of that game had an interest in the outcome? And yet we stand here with the potential of having some of the most fundamental decisions, most important decisions, about how we go forward as a society decided by people who have a stated, voiced interest in the outcome."
I think that it is right for the president and the congress to appoint a judge because they pick the judges that would suit the job the best. The president and the congress know the most about who should be a judge not us, and I think that they would make the right decision.
I believe that a switch to the merit system would be very beneficial for Minnesota. As cited by Page, “ We stand here with the potential of having some of the most fundamental decisions , most important decisions, about how we go forward as a society decided by people who have a stated \voiced interest in the outcome “( Star Tribune). Judges can not be insulated from politics and interest groups if they are subjected to the election process. By choosing judges by merit, Minnesota will have a court system free of biases and political interests. This system has worked well for centuries at the federal level, and will work just as efficiently at the state and local level. Twenty states also have experimented with this system and Minnesota should be next in line.
Some are afraid that this insulation from politics would create an elitist system, where governors and officials would choose those who best support their political views. But, the “trickle down” theory can be applied to this argument. The people are the ones who elect the governor, and in turn the governor would choose a judge that reflects the views of his constituents. If the governor did not choose a judge that the people agreed with, his job could be in jeopardy. Establishing the merit system would be the best choice for Minnesota.
I feel that judges should be appointed. I feel this way because judges are not really allowed to campaign at all, but we are supposed to vote on who we support even though we know nothing about them. It will be a lot simpler to just have judges appointed then to have to vote for them. I think that appointment would be effective because a commission will decide a group of possible judges for the governor to decide from.
I would support the amendment to allow voters to take off a judge. I feel this way because there is a possibility that a judge might start making decisions that people in the community don't agree with. If this happens then I think that the judge could get voted out of their position for not representing the community properly.
Judges should be appointed in my opinion voting really has no benefit because we really know nothing about these different judges and since they cant voice their opinions we have no basis of who is who.I would not agree with that amendment I think the people we appoint for office should be able to make those choices for us and in our best interest.
I believe that judges should be appointed by the governor instead of being elected by the people. The article included a good point that the voters know little or nothing about the judges they are voting for. However, if judges were to still be elected, a record of how that judge has decided previous court cases may prove to be a useful piece of information about that judge.
I would support the ammendment because it gives the people the ability to remove a judge if that judge decides to make unwise and just plain ridiculous court decisions. I believe that sort of appointment process would comply with checks and balances in this country that don't allow any single group or person from having too much power.
People should not elect their own judges into office. A- Judges cannot campain, so people would know nothing about them and B- even if information was avalible about judges, very few people would take time to learn it. There are to many positions that need to be filled, especially on a national level. The national Government has the right way to do this, not involving the public. If the public does not like the decission of their represtentive, they can not vote for them in the next election. Minnesota sould use the format set down by the US Constitution.
I believe that the new way to choose judges is a good idea. When people were voting for who would be the next judge they didn't know any of the qualifications or any of that. They were basically picking names by who was their favorite. The govenor would know more about the judges and it would be an overall better idea.
I would support the ammendment to the constitution. It's a good idea for the govenor to select the judge and if the people decide that they don't like the judge they have the option to make a decision to keep them in or out of office by a vote. This way the citizens would still have some power but they judges would be approved in a better way.
I do not agree with Wiseman’s way of looking at this issue. If we stuck to the traditional way of doing things then we would still be using the separate but equal doctrine, and other things that have changed over time. Our country has progressed a lot since the founding fathers created the constitution by changing our traditional ways. I can understand people being fearful of the government deciding the judges but you need to take into consideration that the voters have the right to vote to get rid of a judge if they don’t think he is doing a good job. The government will pick who they think is best for the job, most people don’t know what the names mean on the ballot.
Dear Miss Krystina Rae Nachicas
I agree with your statements made about how people should have say in electing our judges into office because it is we the people who are the ones getting the verdict and punishments from them. Yes it is the important people too like congress and senate to review their past and make sure they are reliable honest and faithful people. I disagree however on how you think that congress doesn’t think our opinions matter as much as theirs do because they are working on our government to satisfy our needs and pleasures and make this country as easy to live in as possible.
I agree with Connor on his opinion. Connor states that the governer would appoint those who have the same views and opinions, which exactly right. Taking away our power to vote for our judges would not be fair.
I agree with Niles. You really don’t know if you are making a good choice with the judge you vote for. The governor would be able to pick a judge that he feels would do the most good for everyone. And if we as citizens feel they are doing a poor job we still have the power to take them off.
I agree with jackie who agreed with niles and I disagree with melanie who agreed with connor. When we vote for justices we do not know who we are voting for because not many people research justices, also how can justices campaign if they are supposed to be unbiased and have complete objectivity? Even if the governor does appoint someone who people don't like, the senate still has to approve that person, so there are checks and balances, also we have the power to vote them off the bench if we don't like them
I think this is an alright idea. Like the article says, twenty states have already adopted this system. I think its safe to assume that the average Minnesotan doesn't know much about the potential justices and that the executive part of the Minnesota government should be the ones to choose justices. Also, justices would have to sort of campaign and would make lots of decisions based on what will help them get the job. Justices need to be impartial and we need to trust the officials that we elect to make this particular decision. Also, voters would still have a say in taking the justice off the supreme court. This is a good proposal
I agree with Jacob. The most important part of this issue is keeping judges impartial. Also, having voters periodically decide if the justice is doing a good job is the fairest way for the public to voice their opinion.
I agree with jacob, its important to keep judges impartial over everything else. Votes can overlook the appointments and the judges work and than decide if something needs to be changed but its the best idea to just have appointment and keep the judges impartial.
I don't agree with what wiseman has said about this issue. I think that its pointless for the people to elect a judge into office when they don't know anything about them and are just choosing them by a random name. I would much rather have a govenor choose who would be a good person for the position and if they're bad at it we will still have the power to take them out of their position.
I agree with most people on this issue. We should allow the governor and other knowledgable people to choose who our judges are. I have another idea to add to all of this. If a person feels very strongly about electing the judges, then should we create a committee-like group of people that can meet with the governor and as a group, decide the judges? It would sort-of serve as a happy medium, and I dont think very many people would feel that strongly anyways. The group wouldn't end up being over 100 at the very most.
I disagree with Niles on the amendment. If only the governor and his people are allowed to decide who the judges will be, they're only going to pick ones that side with the governor's opinions on issues. Even though the governor is elected into office, there's still many people in Minnesota who don't agree with his decisions. As the people in Minnesota, we should have the right to say when a judge isn't being fair, or when they are doing something we don't like.
I think that judges should be appointed. With elections some judges might become bias, through money donations.
I agree with niles. The most important things are to keep judges impartial. With elections they might feel responsible for donations given to them. I don't agree with the amendment.
I agree with Anna V., the people should be allowed the power to decide if a judge is being bias or unfair. Also that people still deserve some power in this process, considering the fact that they are losing their power to appoint a judge.
I think that this is a good proposal. The article, by the Star Tribune, say’s that more then twenty states already use this system. I think that we should do it this way because in the end if it doesn’t work out the people can still give their opinion. Also I think that there are so many people that to please all of them and make everyone happy would be impossible. So overall I think judges should be appointed. I also think that if we have to change the state constitution then we should do it, but only if it is for the better.
I disagree with wiseman. I think that saying that why change now when we have a traditional way already is not a very could excuse for not changing the way that we should elect judges into office. We have change laws and people rights for years to better our society. We used to think that hanging people was the best way for the death penalty, and then we tried new things and found that it might not be. I think that if we try to do new things that it might better our society, and if it doesn't then I'm sure that something will change to try and make it better.
I agree with Spencer. We do not know anything about the judges we are voting for. It would be nice if we as voters could get more informed about the people that would be appointed judges. I know we can't get to know them to well because they don't want to share their opinions, but we should be allowed to find out some general information about them. In conclusion Spencer makes a great point, and i do agree with him on this topic.
I also agree with Anna. People may not be able to select a judge if the governor appoints them, but the ability to remove a poor or biased judge is just as important.
In response to Canetha:
Though we live in a democratic society, direct democracy in many cases can be inefficient and ineffective. This is clearly seen in the election process of judges. Voters are given the choice to directly vote on who they wish to serve as a judge. Yet, the voter has little background knowledge on the decision they make. Many times they end up voting for a judge that does not share their personal views anyway!
The governor (or other elected official) would be ideal for such a decision. They have the time and resources to choose a judge who would best serve at the state/ local level. Governors are able to use their staff and other means to find the best candidate. The great thing is, is that YOU get to elect the governor ( and your vote has more knowledge behind it). The people still have the ability to elect the governor, and in turn the governor is able to take the time and energy to pick the best candidate for the judgeship.
In response to Jenny:
Jenny I agree with you on your argument that there's no real good way of electing judges. If people hear their opinions and standpoints on certain issues, it will only come back to bite them later. I also agree with the fact that nobody appoints judges on their qualifications, more on opinions, so I am in favor of what you say Jenny because we'll never really know someone or what they believe in for sure.
I disagree with Wiseman. Why should we vote for people that we know nothing about? It seems like a waste of time to vote for judges unless we get to here their views, but since we cant I see no point.
I totally agree with Anna's suggestion that she came up with. It agrees with both of the agruements-selection by civilians, and selection by people who know wat they are talking about. There is one possible problem with it, though, because people would disagree with how the committee selects its members. Then you are right back where you started.
I think judges should be appointed instead of elected. When they are appointed they are evaluated by a commission. The commission periodically makes a decision to keep the judge or reject them. This is a lot easier than voting for judge. If you vote for them it will take a long time to finally get the judge on the panel. You would also have the problem of having to know what each judge stands for, it not like you are voting for one judge you are voting for more than one.
Yes I would support the amendment to change the state constitution. This is a good idea because the people should have a say in their judges. If the people feel that the judges are not doing their job right, then the judge should be removed.
I believe Judges should be elected. The only way that this government can remain a government that speaks and represents the people is through the electoral process. Appointed judges will be more likely to share views solely with the governor and less likely to share views with the general public. Some might agree with this view in saying that if we dont like the judge we can vote them off. That idealology is simply absurd. The concept of us voting to remove is only an illusion. Unless there is a near complete disaproval of a judge I highly doubt enough people will come together and vote to remove a judge from office. If we want to remain a country of the people we must remain a country with the right to vote.
test
i agree with melanie that the majority of the public has no idea about the judges views and that the government has a better idea on their views.I think that if they are to be chosen by voting the voting should include members of the government that might know more about what they're talking about.
Post a Comment