I know nothing of the legal system here (UK) or America but...

[TonsOfFun]

...is this really how things work?

Did I seriously see a clip of George Bush choosing or recommending a Judge? I wasn't paying much attention until it finished and I thought WTF!?

Is this how Judges are chosen, I know some of you will jump all over me for not knowing the legal system because I don't know everything and some of you think you do. But to me, if judges are chosen by the government, isn't there a MAJOR conflict of interest. Does this happen all over the world? I would of picked up on Tony Blair recommending or choosing a Judge if I saw it happened here and would be outraged!, but when I think back I cannot remember if I have or haven't, I just see and I have a major problem with the legal system if this is how it works. HIGHLY suspect?

So can someone explain to me the legal system and how Judges are appointed and then I'll work out if it is fucked up or not.

And if I do have the right end of the stick, doesn't anyone else think this is just WRONG and why has no one marched on to Downing Street and Washington? Or have I totally missed the point?

I mean seriously! I'm confused :confused:

[Documad]

The US president gets to pick all the federal judges with the advice and consent of the US senate, which should mean that he gets his choice unless there is something pretty seriously wrong with his candidate. In fact, there is usually a committee that screens candidates and there is a tradition where he lets the older senator from that state of his same party to recommend the lower level federal judges.

We have two completely separate systems. The president picks federal judges. We also have state judges. In some states they're appointed and in others they're elected, and in some it's a combination. Most of the judges in my state were picked by the governor and then they have to be reelected but some were elected all along. I think the appointment system works best. In states where there are real elections, the candidates have to raise a lot of money and I can't imagine how they can be a fair and impartial judge when they have to raise millions of dollars to keep their jobs.

I don't know how it works in the UK but I've always wondered how all the rankings for attorneys work too. I understand the two different kinds of attorneys (which we don't have), but how does one become a Queen's counsel?

[TonsOfFun]

But shouldn't your peers vote you in.

I can understand the raising election money wouldn't be fair to those who aren't evil enough to have money.

But with the President choosing the top Judge - it cannot be nothing but a problem as how would the 'supposedly top judge' decide for example, if a war was illegal when the guy/girl with the job is employed by the ones who want to start a war. That is not Justice! 1000's of people could lose their lives because the legal system is flawed. Just because they are the government, it cannot make them free of any justice against them if they do wrong. How can a judge be impartial (which must be 99.9% of their job description) if they are elected this way?

I've been looking on Wikipedia for how all this works but, nothing of any substance on how the legal system works is on there. Or I can find.

I really don't like the present process.

[Documad]

With our local state judges, the local lawyers participate in polls that recommend whether a judge should be retained. It's often a popularity contest. Then we hand it over to voters who don't have a clue and I'm sure none of them read the attorney magazine where the results were published.

No system for chosing judges is flawless, but I like the appointment process.

It's difficult to know whether an attorney will make a good judge. They are different skill sets. Some of the smartest attorneys are terrible judges and I knew a lawyer with no litigation experience who was one of the better judges around.

[sam i am]

The US president gets to pick all the federal judges with the advice and consent of the US senate, which should mean that he gets his choice unless there is something pretty seriously wrong with his candidate. In fact, there is usually a committee that screens candidates and there is a tradition where he lets the older senator from that state of his same party to recommend the lower level federal judges.

We have two completely separate systems. The president picks federal judges. We also have state judges. In some states they're appointed and in others they're elected, and in some it's a combination. Most of the judges in my state were picked by the governor and then they have to be reelected but some were elected all along. I think the appointment system works best. In states where there are real elections, the candidates have to raise a lot of money and I can't imagine how they can be a fair and impartial judge when they have to raise millions of dollars to keep their jobs.

I don't know how it works in the UK but I've always wondered how all the rankings for attorneys work too. I understand the two different kinds of attorneys (which we don't have), but how does one become a Queen's counsel?

Ironically, the US also had State Legislatures pick US Senators as well, until 1920.

So, Documad, are you in favor of having that system as well, or do you think we should continue to have Senators campaign for office? Wouldn't "appointing" those US SEnators be a better system to go with, as the State Legislators are more "informed" to make a choice than the electorate?

I'm truly curious to hear your opinion.

[checkyourprez]

voting a judge would not work. you do know bush was voted into office?


also because these are life time appointments voting wouldnt work, because theres too much public passion involved with voting, something that is a hot topic at the instant of the vote may be the reason why someone wins the election, but if you have a job for life that includes tons and tons of things that should not be the criteria for getting your job.


also with the supreme court because they are there for life sometimes presidents dont even get to a judge. sometimes they get a couple. but the pure fact that there will still be majority of judges picked by different presidents of different ideologies or parties insures that there will be parity.


not to mention that judges dont always turn out the way you'd think. there have been judges that backfire and turn out not to be the kind of judge that the president implementing them thought they would be.

for the most part they try to not decide things on personal believes and just on interpretations of the constitution, but problem lies in the very different interpretations of it, but o well.

in the end i think it is the best system for picking a judge, i dont really see any other way.

[sam i am]

voting a judge would not work. you do know bush was voted into office?


also because these are life time appointments voting wouldnt work, because theres too much public passion involved with voting, something that is a hot topic at the instant of the vote may be the reason why someone wins the election, but if you have a job for life that includes tons and tons of things that should not be the criteria for getting your job.


also with the supreme court because they are there for life sometimes presidents dont even get to a judge. sometimes they get a couple. but the pure fact that there will still be majority of judges picked by different presidents of different ideologies or parties insures that there will be parity.


not to mention that judges dont always turn out the way you'd think. there have been judges that backfire and turn out not to be the kind of judge that the president implementing them thought they would be.

for the most part they try to not decide things on personal believes and just on interpretations of the constitution, but problem lies in the very different interpretations of it, but o well.

in the end i think it is the best system for picking a judge, i dont really see any other way.

Oh, I agree with you that the appointment process is the best.

That little pecadillo about "advise and consent" notwithstanding, it's one of the few long-term, farsighted parts of the Constitution the framers made that has withstood the test of time.

Whether this PARTICULAR nomination holds up is a wholly different query, however.

[checkyourprez]

Oh, I agree with you that the appointment process is the best.

That little pecadillo about "advise and consent" notwithstanding, it's one of the few long-term, farsighted parts of the Constitution the framers made that has withstood the test of time.

Whether this PARTICULAR nomination holds up is a wholly different query, however.


agreed. i personally think bush knows what hes getting or else he wouldnt be putting her there. its not like he hasnt worked with her for a bunch of years now.

and to be honest anybody that works with bush that long...ehhhh idk i cant really explain it. but they probably suck.

[ms.peachy]

But with the President choosing the top Judge - it cannot be nothing but a problem as how would the 'supposedly top judge' decide for example, if a war was illegal when the guy/girl with the job is employed by the ones who want to start a war. That is not Justice! 1000's of people could lose their lives because the legal system is flawed. Just because they are the government, it cannot make them free of any justice against them if they do wrong. How can a judge be impartial (which must be 99.9% of their job description) if they are elected this way?

You have to remember that none of this happens in a vaccuum. I understand that what you are concerned about is the president having too much power to appoint someone who will just do what he wants them to, but it doesn't really work out that way. The president isn't picking "the top judge", he is choosing a single person (not even neccessarily a judge, as we have just seen) to be recommended for confirmation to the Supreme Court, where they will sit along with eight others.

The current situation, with their being two vacancies to fill in such a short time, is incredibly unusual. I don't know enough of the history of the Supreme Court to know how many presidents have had the opportunity to nominate more than one person, but I'm sure it is rare.