The millions in campaign funding poured into the Wisconsin Supreme Court election spotlights the increasing partisanship around these supposedly neutral court roles. It also feeds a growing concern nationally about the independence of state high courts.
Electing judges in the first place undermines trust in neutrality of the courts. Since it undermines neutrality of the courts. It makes judges make campaign promises they have to keep to not anger people and makes them indebted to their campaign financiers.
Like how is this supposed shocking new news just because someone spent finally even more money on a judicial election race. Word combination which shouldn’t exist in the first place.
I agree, but what is the alternative? I mean, is there a neutral way to get new supreme court justices?
(Honestly askibg)
In some ways, electing judges makes sense. The judicial system should carry out the will of the people after all.
But I agree with you in general that the election system is highly flawed.
That is what juries are for. Judges are supposed to be the specialist technocrats of legal system. Juries are then for “feelings of the society” matters. Most importantly nobody has to campaign or owe anyone large sums of money to get into jury.
Carrying out the will of the people is not a judges role, especially the supreme court.
A primary role of judges is to deny the will of the people in favor of what some slavers wanted hundreds of years ago.
Citizen’s United flew in the face of ‘original intent.’
The Founding Fathers never conceived of anonymous backers coming in and influencing elections; they lived in a time when all transactions were face-to-face or through mail from a known correspondent.
The
Founding Fathersfounding slaversHow old are you? Who’re your daddies? smh.
How old are you?
‘Founding fathers’ has been an accepted shorthand for decades.
Ignoring the actual content of a message to quibble about wording doesn’t impress people.
Grow up.
Trust???
lol.
