Social not political

[Carlisle Blues]

But when you start looking at laws enacted at the State level, it becomes very haphazard indeed. I used to be a workers' compensation claims examiner. In the US, this insurance is compulsory by federal mandate, but each State is left to determine the details, which are often radically different as one moves from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In other words, haphazard regulation and enforcement of a common policy. State tax regimes are another place where the "haphazard" aspects of a federal system of government become readily apparent.

I think that's what Tomasso meant. At least, that's what I got out of it.

Thank you for your interpretation of Tomasso's explanation. Nevertheless, each jurisdiction serves a populace with specific and somewhat different needs.

The "Federated States" model enables each jurisdiction to serve it's citizens by enacting laws and creating legislation to address those differing needs. I cannot see that as haphazard in the least. In fact, one central body cannot possibly address the concerns of a territory as large and a variant as the "Unites States", for example.

In fact, this speaks directly to the question presented by the OP and the answers provided.

 

[Guttersnipe]

Not to get off topic, but I think the theory behind electing coroners is that by doing so they will have autonomy from the law enforcement and prosecutorial establishments.

To get back on topic, however, some judges are both appointed and elected. In California, State Supreme Courts justices are appointed, then at the that twelve-year "probationary" period, they stand for reelection every twelve years.

What is really strange is that we vote for Coroner. Shouldn't that be an appointment of the District Attorney? You don't even need to be a doctor for the job. One of our county's longest running coroner was a funeral home director.

 

[Tomasso]

I think that's what Tomasso meant. At least, that's what I got out of it.

Yes. Laws, taxation, regulations, codes, etc..., are all over the place. What is a legal act in one state can get you fined in another state and imprisoned in yet another. Crossing a state line in the US is like crossing a border in Europe.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

^^^
Think comity.....

 

[dr greg]

You get life

Well not quite, over here, judges and prosecutors that are appointed have to retire at 70 I believe, and since they generally come from the bar, tend to take their impartiality quite seriously so there have been cases where supposedly biased and/or political appointments have proved to turn out surprisingly independent once they got their 'bum on the seat'.

 

[Atticus Finch]

North Carolina is a state where everybody has to run for office...and often. Even our District Court (read: Traffic, Slap and Babydaddy Court) judges have to run every four years. I would personally prefer that judges be appointed, but I'm a prosecutor...I expect most of my Defense Bar friends would disagree.

AF

 

[sixties.nut]

Uh-Oh

um um umm, Atticus said the P word


________________________________
Yeah, I could have been a Doctor Too
(if it weren't for all that blood and math
and STUFF! {Woody Harrelson; Doc
Hollywood})

 

[norton]

I'm trying to decide if the case of Alcee Hastings is an argument in favor of or against electing judges.

For those of you not familiar with Alcee Hastings, he was an appointed federal judge from 1979-1989. In 1989 he was convicted of taking bribes and perjury and impeached. He was then elected to Congress in 1992 where he still serves today.

I guess you're going to get some strange results not matter how the system is set up.

 

[Atticus Finch]

um um umm, Atticus said the P word.

Heh, heh.

Last election, our chief District Court Judge had opposition. After the smoke cleared, I pulled his final campaign finance report. Over seventy-five percent of his contributions had come from defense attorneys.

Interesting.

AF

 

[sixties.nut]

Nothin gets by OUR Guy

We should have all chipped in and hired you to go down to Florida an looked into that Chad business. I just wonder what opposite reaction that action would have yielded? We'll never know. Oops I temporarily slipped over the line into political.:eusa_doh: But just maybe that prospective.... nah !

 

[Mr. Paladin]

North Carolina is a state where everybody has to run for office...and often. Even our District Court (read: Traffic, Slap and Babydaddy Court) judges have to run every four years. I would personally prefer that judges be appointed, but I'm a prosecutor...I expect most of my Defense Bar friends would disagree.

AF

It is interesting that our perspectives vary on the election of judges, since we are both on the enforcement side. Here in my area of Texas, unless you have been a prosecutor for a period of time, as well as a defense attorney, you won't stand a chance. Both the defense bar and police associations weigh in on the campaigns with endorsements and contributions. It gives everyone perspective on your outlook. Our judge candidates can and do declare their party affiliations; I just voted for judges (and other offices) in one party primary. Since I have lived in this particular county, NO Democrat has been elected to the bench, in keeping with the conservative values of the populace.

 

[dr greg]

join the party

So the campaigns are run on party lines and not personality/record?!? Wow, that is VERY different to how we do things I can tell you...so what happens when there are obviously prejudicial situations such as prosecutions or sentencing of people who are declared members of ideologically opposite organisations? Don't they have a case for inherent bias?

 

[Yeps]

this post was too political and confrontational, so despite having posted it here a couple days ago, I am taking it away now.

 

[Geesie]

So the campaigns are run on party lines and not personality/record?!? Wow, that is VERY different to how we do things I can tell you...so what happens when there are obviously prejudicial situations such as prosecutions or sentencing of people who are declared members of ideologically opposite organisations? Don't they have a case for inherent bias?

Well, I haven't participated in many elections that had judges and DAs on the ballot, but they tended to run on being "toughest" or "I got more convictions than anyone else".

Which is why I never voted for any of them. I want a fair judge, quality not quantity. I wrote in "Donald Duck."

 

[Mr. Paladin]

So the campaigns are run on party lines and not personality/record?!? Wow, that is VERY different to how we do things I can tell you...so what happens when there are obviously prejudicial situations such as prosecutions or sentencing of people who are declared members of ideologically opposite organisations? Don't they have a case for inherent bias?

Well, that is not exactly the case. State and local judges of like parties, (Republican/Democrat) run against each other in the party primary elections. The party's winner then runs against the opposing party's winner in the general elections in November. Judges infer party affiliations for the elections but run on their judicial experience, legal experience, and judicial philosophy, which often tends to be the party philosophy as indicated by the US Supreme Court justices appointed and approved by the US Congress when their party is in power. For instance, in my county, Reagan and Bush appointees are often cited for philosophy comparisons, while in other counties such as Harris Co. (Houston), Clinton justices are cited for philosophy comparisons. This gives a basis for comparisons as the judicial philosophy of Justice Scalia (originalist and strict constructionist) is far different from that of Justice Stevens (living, breathing document idea of the US Constitution). In Texas, there are 254 counties so even the Texas Legislature would have a hard time appointing appropriate judges to all of the courts involved in that number of counties. Especially since we only allow our legislature to meet for 140 days every two years by the State Constitution.

By the way, judges from the county level and up are required to be attorneys or members of the bar.

 

[Lincsong]

What is really strange is that we vote for Coroner. Shouldn't that be an appointment of the District Attorney? You don't even need to be a doctor for the job. One of our county's longest running coroner was a funeral home director.

We have a Sherriff/Coroner here in Alameda County, CA.

 

[Lincsong]

In California, the Governor nominates Supreme Court Justices, and then every 12 years there is a yes/no vote if he should continue in said capacity.

 

[carebear]

Alaska is similar. The Governor is given a list of candidates by the Judicial Board (ensuring qualified, "peer-reviewed" and mostly non-partisan candidates) and the appointees then face regular retention elections.

 

[Absinthe_1900]

I think this question has been answered - admirably so!

We're watching this for "mission drift."

Coroner: Same deal in Ohio. Also, Sheriffs are elected. Screwy.

Until they were abolished, we used to have two elected positions, Official City Weigher, and Inspector of Animals, and Hides......I had a friend that used to write my name on the ballot for those, on the off chance I'd tapped for the position.

 

[LizzieMaine]

In Maine the only judges we elect are probate judges -- and those offices are usually uncontested. In all the state's history, back to 1820, we've never had elected judges in any other position -- all others are appointed by the governor for seven-year terms -- usually from the ranks of DAs, who *are* elected -- are confirmed by the Senate, and can be removed from office by impeachment. But that's very very rare -- in the fifteen years I worked as a reporter, I can't remember a single judge anywhere in the state being removed for corruption. Such cases have been very very few and far between.

The elected office we don't like here is that of county sheriff -- of all positions, I'd think the county's top law enforcement officer should be selected on the basis of competence and qualification, not back-slapping goodguysmanship.