If judges are subject to elections, what chance is there of a fair trial at the hands of a politician?

It depends on the type of election. But Justice ought to be subject to consent of the governed.

In California, for the State Supreme Court (analogous to SCOTUS) and the Courts of Appeal, the Governor appoints, the legislature confirms, and periodically (every 12 years) the justices need to be okayed by the voters in an up or down vote. We have two in on the ballot today.

This isn’t a popularity contest, but Justices that rule contrary to the sense of the people can be removed. In 1986 Chief Justice Rose Bird and two others were removed from the bench, because they overturned 100% of Death Penalty appeals because of opposition to the Death Penalty, not because of any defects in the law or trials. .

I’m not a fan of elected judges, myself. I don’t think there is any way an electorate can be informed about a particular judge, and they’ll end up going by either a) name recognition, or b) whatever a special interest group tells them to vote. I think all judges should be appointed for a term, and then their terms re-upped by the appointing body.

Maybe but if they’re appointed by a politician…....

@zenvelo So, it isn’t possible that Bird and her cohorts believed that the law itself was defective? And should justice in fact be about the “will of the majority”?

Good points both @Adirondackwannabe & @osoraro So should the judiciary be completely isolated from the other 2 branches when it comes to appointments, promotions, and revocation of judicial tenure?

I don’t know. How do we get politics out of it?

The courts could appoint, promote and fire judges. The trouble being of course that we have laws already stipulating the involvement of the other branches at both the federal and state levels.

@stanleybmanly Chief Justice Bird didn’t find the law defective. They could have found it violated California’s Constitution, although since it had been instituted as a Constitutional amendment, that would have been difficult.

And, in a democracy, justice should reflect the sense of the people as long as it does not violate the rights of the minority.

@zenvelo I keep coming back to that same thought. Politics has to be a part of it. The people have to choose, even if they don’t know squat. It’s still their choice.

No idea. I just think that electing judges are pointless. On my ballot I had 8 judges running, and I had to vote yes/no. I hadn’t heard of any of them but they were all incumbents. I figured since I’d never heard of them they were doing a good job (i.e. they didn’t get in the papers) so I voted yes on everybody.