• @Ross_audio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    23 months ago

    So the problem with elected judges is the elections.

    There are solutions to that. One of which is to appoint.

    There are problems with appointed judges in America no doubt. Changes to appointments could definitely solve them. Elections most likely won’t.

    Politics is inevitable and unavoidable. Your choice of sandwiches is ultimately political. Let alone judges.

    Partisan politics is avoidable.

    Avoid partisanship in the justice system and then you solve a lot of problems.

      • @Ross_audio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        13 months ago

        Asking millions of unqualified people to pick an expert and professional will not be as successful as an unbiased selection committee.

        Not every problem is solvable with a popularity contest.

        As long as a committee has democratic oversight democracy can still fix any problems as you wish. But it’s much more efficient and successful most of the time.

        • queermunist she/her
          link
          fedilink
          03 months ago

          But by that logic there’s no reason to ask millions of unqualified people to pick an expert and professional legislator.

          You’re creating an arbitrary professional difference between creation of legislation and interpretation of legislation, but that’s ideological. When it comes down to it, by your logic, legislators should be chosen by an unbiased selection committee. That’s where your antidemocratic logic leads.

          • @Ross_audio@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            23 months ago

            There are no illusions that politicians are experts.

            Authority given to a judge is because of expertise, not in order to represent.

            Elect representation, select expertise. Ensure oversight for both situations.

            I’ve said before oversight is already in place be a democratically elected official. So stop with the silliness in claiming I’m antidemocratic.

            The difference between you and me is you’re sprouting ideology and I’m explaining how a good system actually works in the real world in my country.

            • queermunist she/her
              link
              fedilink
              03 months ago

              Okay, and I’m responding to how a bad system actually works in the real world in my country. The lack of democratic input and oversight of the Judiciary in the US is the problem. US judges have always been bad because they were either appointed to undermine democracy or elected by undemocratic means. The problem has never been democracy.

              • @Ross_audio@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                13 months ago

                Yes, but your country being unable to have sensible judicial selection and poor judicial elections is not an argument for anywhere else.

                The US ranges from failure to bad.

                Other countries range from the good to the point other countries refuse to replace their own court system in order to continue using the good judiciary that’s trusted internationally.

                Using the US as an example to follow in this case is a bad idea. Even if removing selection from the US system would be an improvement, it isn’t relevant anywhere else.

                Especially when discussing an ideological law like making elections compulsory.

                • queermunist she/her
                  link
                  fedilink
                  13 months ago

                  Mexico, being a US neighbor, is probably basing some of this decision off of the shit show happening across the border. I suppose that does bias their decision making.

                  I guess we’ll see how it works out, since this looks like a done deal.