Should judges be elected or appointed on the local / state level?

[Matt Collins]

What are your thoughts on the issue? :confused:

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Judges should not in any way, shape or form be connected to The State. They should be independent referee's. They should ONLY be there to ensure the rules of a fair trial are observed by the lawyers. Only juries should render decisions...even at the SCOTUS in my opinion.

[Matt Collins]

Judges should not in any way, shape or form be connected to The State. They should be independent referee's. They should ONLY be there to ensure the rules of a fair trial are observed by the lawyers. Only juries should render decisions...even at the SCOTUS in my opinion.
Then how do they enforce their decisions?

[Brett85]

If you're talking about State Supreme Court justices, I think that they should be appointed by the Governor and either confirmed or rejected by the legislature.

[Natalie]

//

[heavenlyboy34]

None of the above. Professional dispute arbitration FTW.

[heavenlyboy34]

Then how do they enforce their decisions?

The judicial branch doesn't enforce anything(even if we consider government judiciaries legitimate). It interprets the law. This is civics 101, Collins.

For more detail, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary

[heavenlyboy34]

Judges should not in any way, shape or form be connected to The State. They should be independent referee's. They should ONLY be there to ensure the rules of a fair trial are observed by the lawyers. Only juries should render decisions...even at the SCOTUS in my opinion.

+ infinity

[BamaAla]

Elected yearly. Keep them as honest as possible.

[Matt Collins]

None of the above. Professional dispute arbitration FTW.And how are their decisions enforced or even valid? :confused:

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

And how are their decisions enforced or even valid? :confused:

Judges wouldn't enforce anything. Again juries, and ONLY juries, have that power under the Constitution. Judges are merely referees. As for enforcement, that's a separate issue in my opinion. It rests partly upon whether we have a system of Restitution (which is how it should be) or Retribution (which is what we have now).

[BamaAla]

Judges wouldn't enforce anything. Again juries, and ONLY juries, have that power under the Constitution. Judges are merely referees. As for enforcement, that's a separate issue in my opinion. It rests partly upon whether we have a system of Restitution (which is how it should be) or Retribution (which is what we have now).

The Constitution is silent on state and local courts with the exception of the "full faith and credit" clause.

[Wesker1982]

And how are their decisions enforced or even valid? :confused:

There are some good answers here iirc
http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=67
http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
http://freedomainradio.com/board/blogs/freedomain/archive/2008/11/14/practical-anarchy-the-book.aspx

[Matt Collins]

There are some good answers here iirc
http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=67
http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
http://freedomainradio.com/board/blogs/freedomain/archive/2008/11/14/practical-anarchy-the-book.aspx
Summarize for me (or give me the page # on Rothbard's book)

[Matt Collins]

Ok, let me rephrase the question.

As an example, if you have a contract dispute between two people, how does that contract dispute get decided and then get enforced?

[NYgs23]

Ideally, private arbitrators should handle everything. But insofar as we have a judiciary, I think they should be appointed. I think, given their role, they should be insulated from politics as far as is possible. Not that appointed judges are unpolitical, but probably less so than elected ones. They're probably more willing to make unpopular decisions.

Also, most people hardly pay any attention to judicial elections anyway. People have lives and can only pay attention to so many elections. If you have too many officials elected, people aren't going to pay as much attention to any particular one and make worse decisions. Meanwhile, things like judicial elections will be decided largely by political machines.

[Matt Collins]

Ideally, private arbitrators should handle everything.I agree and understand that. But what about those individuals who refuse to submit themselves to private arbitrators? Or what about those who simply ignore the outcome of the arbitration?

[muzzled dogg]

privatize

[kah13176]

Think about the implications of the 17th amendment. After Senators were subject to direct elections, all this campaign ethics shit hit the fan.

[fisharmor]

Ok, let me rephrase the question.

As an example, if you have a contract dispute between two people, how does that contract dispute get decided and then get enforced?

Why do we need a judicial system to enforce contracts?
if I go to rent an apartment, I have to sign a contract, but I'm also on the hook for a whole month's rent (typically) as a deposit, in order to further guarantee that I won't trash the place and skip town.
That deposit then becomes my incentive for behaving myself - not some arbitrary threat of legal action.
The same is true for renting U-hauls, if memory serves.

How this would play out on a larger scale is a bit of a mystery to me, but that's not a problem for me because the existing large-scale business scenario relies on the state's existence for contract arbitration. Take the state away, and it will be a matter of hours before the market figures out how to get around it not being there anymore. That's what the market does, and why we all (supposedly) have faith in it.
This is why I am also in the "eff 'em, we don't need 'em" crowd.

The bottom line for me is my favorite saying when it comes to judges:
Everyone hates lawyers, everyone hates politicians, and a judge is just a lawyer with political connections.

[Wesker1982]

I agree and understand that. But what about those individuals who refuse to submit themselves to private arbitrators? Or what about those who simply ignore the outcome of the arbitration?

If you are really interested why don't you check out the literature on the subject?

I don't think its consistent to claim to advocate maximum liberty without attempting to understand if freedom has an answer to these problems. If freedom DOES have an even possible answer, but you aren't interested in giving liberty's answer serious thought (as in, reading a book, not looking for a two sentence answers to complex issues on the RPF), can you really claim to support liberty? If government is an unnecessary evil, would you even want to know?

It would be like claiming to advocate liberty but also saying that in order to protect everyone's economic freedom, the government must control the money supply, enforce minimum wage laws, establish a central bank, regulate the economy in various ways, etc., without ever having picked up a book on Austrian Economics or any other book that might challenge your faith.

[Matt Collins]

If you are really interested why don't you check out the literature on the subject? I have a reading list of about 500 books. I simply don't have the time at the moment, especially given that I am struggling for work, and trying to be a political activist.


That's why I need the cliff-notes version.

[Matt Collins]

Why do we need a judicial system to enforce contracts?
if I go to rent an apartment, I have to sign a contract, but I'm also on the hook for a whole month's rent (typically) as a deposit, in order to further guarantee that I won't trash the place and skip town.
That deposit then becomes my incentive for behaving myself - not some arbitrary threat of legal action.
The same is true for renting U-hauls, if memory serves.Yes, but the deposit is usually less than the item in question. I could trash an apartment and cause way more than $1k worth of damage. Then what?

I could shell out $300 to rent a uhaul trailer, but if I just decide to jack it instead, it would be cheaper than going and buying one.

So then what?


Take the state away, and it will be a matter of hours before the market figures out how to get around it not being there anymore. That's what the market does, and why we all (supposedly) have faith in it.The free market depends on a stable rule of law to exist.

Business owners have to know that if they are going to get ripped off they have the ability to be compensated by the perpetrator. What mechanism can force that to happen, other than the state, which is the only entity that can legally use force (other than defensive situations)?

[NYgs23]

I agree and understand that. But what about those individuals who refuse to submit themselves to private arbitrators? Or what about those who simply ignore the outcome of the arbitration?

I though you wanted to talk about elected vs. appointed judges...?

The theory runs that in a purely stateless society, if a person accused of a crime (let's day theft of a car) refused arbitration/mediation or ignores the outcome, the alleged victim might just go over and take the car by force. Thus, a person refusing arbitration leaves himself without legal recourse. Thus, people would have an incentive to use more orderly means of dispute resolution.

[CMoore]

One proposal around here in Alabama is to do the following:
When a judgeship comes open, have a judge appointed by some sort of panel.
Ideas about how this panel is set up vary, but it would normally consist of lawyers and lay people.
After a period, this judge would have to stand for election. If that person has done a
good job, they would be returned to the bench. If not they would have to give
up the bench to another appointed person. This is not a perfect method, but
it would make it possible for good judicial candidates who are not
good politicians to have a chance at the bench and also let the people
have some recourse to remove bad judges.

[Matt Collins]

I though you wanted to talk about elected vs. appointed judges...?I did but the thread kind of got derailed by the anarchists.


The theory runs that in a purely stateless society, if a person accused of a crime (let's day theft of a car) refused arbitration/mediation or ignores the outcome, the alleged victim might just go over and take the car by force. Thus, a person refusing arbitration leaves himself without legal recourse. Thus, people would have an incentive to use more orderly means of dispute resolution.And if the person who took it outguns the victim?

[fisharmor]

Yes, but the deposit is usually less than the item in question. I could trash an apartment and cause way more than $1k worth of damage. Then what?

I could shell out $300 to rent a uhaul trailer, but if I just decide to jack it instead, it would be cheaper than going and buying one.

So then what?

Well, all I'll say about it is that a destroyed credit rating might be a lenient punishment, but I would rather go lenient in that direction, as opposed to mandating prison rape.
I already said I don't know how the market would respond. That is the point. If any of us really knew how the market would respond, we'd be too busy spending our fabulous wealth to argue on RPF.
If any of us said that the way the market would initially respond would be the final iteration of how things would work for the remainder of time, we wouldn't really understand the market.
The point of the market is that it changes over time in order to tweak and improve the system. The point of the state is that it does not.


The free market depends on a stable rule of law to exist.
This is gratuitous and not verifiable.


I did but the thread kind of got derailed by the anarchists.

Well, let me answer the question you want answered:
If we take it as axiomatic that we need a state-run legal system, why must we take it as axiomatic that the judges must be employed by the same system? Why do we take it as axiomatic that the judges must be professionals?
How about this for an idea: random judge selection, the same way they do juries, only maybe without the threat of prison for people who don't cooperate.
Make the only requirement a high school diploma.
That way you have no shortages, and the additional benefit of having to seriously narrow the scope of what the state wants to prosecute, and the further benefit of having a regular mundane person at the bench doing the sentencing, as opposed to one of the protected class who will never face the risk of being in the dock and therefore can't sympathize.

[ZanZibar]

Think about the implications of the 17th amendment. After Senators were subject to direct elections, all this campaign ethics shit hit the fan.Very interesting point.

[kah13176]

Very interesting point.

Hans-Herman Hoppe makes the same point about democracy. Elections encourage competition between candidates, bringing the worst out of the woodwork: lies, false promises, and corruption. But, if elections are no good, then what is? There is no good government; it's an unnecessary evil.

[Icymudpuppy]

I don't trust the average voter to do enough research on judges to make an informed decision. In my state, all judges are non-partisan by law, and thus get no support from any party to advertise their positions or rent a place for public debates. Thus, a lot of people never even learn a candidate for judge is running until they see the ballot.

The local city council, and local board of county commissioners, however are a very public race, and at least in my area, they are closely followed. I'd rather have those closely watched, and carefully selected boards appoint the judges as they are better equipped to make an informed decision than the voting public, and they are also more likely to get voted out for bad selections than a judge is of losing an election.

However, at this point, our judges are elected, and the result is that the local good ol' boy club literally gets away with murder.

[Dianne]

they should be elected... the judges are just as much scumbags as the government.. and we don't want the corrupt government appointing them.

Here's a case in Union County, North Carolina. A mortgage company came in and filed foreclosure on a man who was in his home for 28 years. This bank, Beneficial Bank said they were the note holder since 1980; however nothing was ever filed by them in court records, regarding deed etc. The entire time the man was paying his mortgage to another bank; who claimed to be the note holder. The crooked clerk of courts in Union County, NC favored the bank; although no documents ever filed by them proving their claim. The victims then sought to overturn the fraudulent foreclosure; and a Judge (appointed by Beverly Perdue) named Christopher Bragg refused to overturn ... guess he and Beverly on the bankster's payroll now.

Home lost with two years left to pay; and lost to a bank that just picked a name out of the hat; filed for foreclosure and the scum mafia judges and clerk of courts in North Carolina were just as guilty as the mafia that stole the home; accessories to the crime... extortion, bribery, money laundering, fraud upon the court, fraud in the court, racketeering ... That's what happens when State appoints Judges.. We all become victims.

[awake]

Some day when we are intelligent enough to trust the market, judges will be hired like any other privately skilled worker. His position and wages will be reliant on his ability to judge well the law (natural law), not on political considerations.

You might think it's not possible, but the market system is capable of providing these services absent the government.

[LoneWolf]

I think the citizens should choose a certain amount of candidates by voting then have an independent panel that have no relations of any kind with the candidates made up of citizens that the community trusts to narrow the field...something of that sort...not sure exactly how it would work but that sounds best IMO.