Really Dumb Reasons To Oppose Appointing Judges
Some critics also wonder if the system would hurt diversity.
“I’m not sure that women or blacks would have been as successful as we are now,” said Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Kelli Wise, one six women among the 19 appellate judges. “I don’t know if we would have had a seat at the table.”
“We?” Uhh, tell me again the name of the black judges currently on our state appellate courts? Wanna guess how the only three African American judges to ever serve on our state’s supreme court got their positions? Appointments.
I hope Judge Wise is more attentive to the the facts and arguments in the cases before her than she is to reality, otherwise, woman or not, she ought not have a seat at the table.
But partisan elections also provide voters the best way to control judges, said Mike DeBow, a professor at the Cumberland School of Law at Samford University.
“They can vote for judges with judicial philosophies closer to their own, lowering the chances that state judges will engage in judicial activism,” he said.
That is not so much dumb as disingenuous. I’m not going to disagree that elections give voters more control over the judges. But giving voters complete control won’t lower the chances of “judicial activism” it will just replace one type with another. Whether the judge is beholden to “trial lawyers” or “big business” or conservatives or liberals doesn’t matter. The problem is that the judge will feel tugged by something other than the law and facts in front of her: The desires of voters. Those desires have no place at all in a court of law.