CONLAWPROF Digest - 28 Nov 2002 to 29 Nov 2002 (#2002-226)
guayiya at BELLSOUTH.NET
Sat Nov 30 13:45:27 PST 2002
This year a judge was elected to the NC Supreme Court who campaigned on
a platform of opposing abortion and gay rights. He now states,
however, that his personal views would never influence his judging.
This process had rather more candor than the usual Senate confirmation
process. Can the "rule of law" survive such candor?
Safranek, Stephen wrote:
>Judicial elections are of numerous types - yes or no on the judge/justice -
>and competitive races. Interestingly, as a political matter it is easier for
>a judge to lose in the yes/no race than in a competitive race because it is
>easier to run against someone than to have someone run against them.
>American citizens overwhelming have chosen to have some say in the retention
>of judges. I do not know of a single state where the voters have a say and
>where they have chosen to limit their participation in the process.
>The need for popular control of state judges was due to the fact that state
>powers were unlimited and the people wanted a check on all branches of their
>government in such a situation. However, under the federal system - the
>Constitution was deemed to create limited and defined powers. No check was
>necessary because the limits were clearly set forth constitutionally.
> <<Stephen Safranek (E-mail).vcf>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Automatic digest processor
>>[mailto:LISTSERV at listserv.ucla.edu]
>>Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 3:00 AM
>>To: Recipients of CONLAWPROF digests
>>Subject: CONLAWPROF Digest - 28 Nov 2002 to 29 Nov 2002 (#2002-226)
>> << Message: CONLAWPROF Digest - 28 Nov 2002 to 29 Nov 2002 (#2002-226) >>
>><< Message: Re: Term Limits >> << Message: Re: Term Limits >> <<
>>Message: Re: Term Limits >> << Message: Re: Term Limits >> << Message:
>>Re: Term Limits >>
More information about the Conlawprof