Judge Moore fired

I don't see it happeneing either but that doens't really have anything to do with my earlier comment.

ebrown_p
If a majority wanted to establish an official state religion, would you see anything wrong with that? After all that's representative government.

Actually, Alabama already has a governor from the religious right--and he's tellin' 'em that a Christian's duty lies in relieving the suffering of the poor, so he proposed a big tax increase ! ! ! Got shot down in the state house, naturally. This joker Moore would be a more popular right-wing religious governor, because mealy-mouthed hypocricy sells better with the electorate.

Au,

If the majority wanted to establish a state religion they have every right to elect officials who agree with them. These officials should institute polices that are in line with the wishes of their constituents.

It is the job of the courts to make sure the will of the majority doesn't violate the state or national Constitution.

If Mr. Moore represents the position of the majority of the electorate - shouldn't he be elected? That's the way it is supposed to work. The person who gets the most votes gets the job. How would you change this sytsem?

Democracy is government by the people. If you support democracy, you can't then turn around and complain just becuase you don't like who the people elected.

A political position seems much more appropriate for him than a judgeship.

The problem with the U.S. Supreme Court is when it started looking upon itself as an instrument of social change instead of doing its job which was a straight up yes/no decision of the Constitutionality of a law.

The Courts ONLY job is to hear cases and make that call. They are not there to change the world for the better. They are not there to reflect the will of the people. ( Thats what Congress is for) They are not there to guide the Nation in new directions. ( Thats the Executive and Legislative Branches job) Their job is to say YES or NO to cases brought before them.

The social change is a by product. What particular decision one disagress with has no place to take it to. If they were to make a new ruling based on a case brought before them, it may result in some social change. There would obviously be another possible majority of the voters who would agree with them and visa versa.

Justice is blind is a classic oxymoron.

If some of the things I've read are correct, he doesn't have to run for governor. He can run for Chief Justice again -- and if elected, will get his job back.

I read that in an op ed column a few days ago, but cannot find it.

Can anyone confirm that to be the case?

Frank, That shouldn't be allowed.

I think the whole idea of electing judges is wrong anyway.

I heard that also on NPR, Frank.

Brown
What happened to the will of the people???

On the subject of electing judges as opposed to appointing them, this is a brouhaha i've never understood. Is anyone seriously contending (especially in light of the contemporary flap in the Senate) that an appointed judge ought somehow to be considered above politics, as opposed to an elected judge? Whether elected or appointed, experience of the practice of the law should be the sole criterion for choosing a judge. There is no more assurance that such will be the case when a judge is appointed, than there will be if a judge is elected--because there is no such assurance in either case.

I disagree.

Judges (unlike the other two branches of government) are not supposed to be swayed by the will of the people. In the contrary judges must often rule against the prevailing popular opinion.

When you elect a judge, the selection is directly based on the will of the majority. There is no way to keep this from being a political position.

In our imperfect world there is no way to completely insulate judges from politics. But I think electing judges is the *worst* way to select judges.

In spite of the current problems in the Senate, judges should be accepted by both parties (i.e. the majority and the minority) before they are accepted.

And i consider it naivete to believe that the one process is superior to the other.

The voting public probing into the background and credentials for a judge? Listen closely and you can hear me laughing clear from here. They have trouble figuring out what a politician is selling them about their suitability for the job.

I must agree with Brown re. the voting for Judges. In effect judgeships are simply another political office. An office filled not by qualification but rather by political connection.

Sentana,

It is not naive to see the difference. The federal system to select judges, for example, ensures that they are at least reasonably moderate.

Bush got himself elected to a four year post. I don't like it, but we will survive.

Can you imagine saying this about a Surpreme Court Justice with a life term making nearly irreversable decisions?

Aren't you glad that the Democrats have the ability to fillibuster Bush's nominations for Judges? I sure am. I also except the ability of the other side to fillibuster our appointments. It keeps us honest.

It's important. So let them fight it out. Give the minority the ability to fillibuster.

If your goal is to avoid judges with an extreme political agenda, this is clear the best way to choose judges.

That's my opinion, and I will feel this way until the day I am inaugerated!

California has judges on the ballet but not one of them is running against another judge. One is just saying okay I don't know anything about this judge but it's a good guess that it's alright if you appointed him or her. The problem is that those who would take the time to examine the history of each judge would be negated by the uninformed votes which are in overwhelming preponderance.

I'm with Ebrown on this. This sword cuts both ways.

We really shouldn't forget the appalling delays instituted by the Republicans over Clinton's appointees -- it was far worse than what the Dems are putting Bush through.

Exactly -- in politics, it's tit for tat. That will not change.

Frank<

You and other readers of this thread may wish to know that Bill Pryor is Alabama's attorney general. He served as prosecutor on the Alabama Court of the Judiciary which ousted Roy Moore. He did an electrifying job.

Trouble with Pryor is, however, that he is one of Dubya's appointees for federal court judge, specifically the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. His nomination is one of those which has been blocked by Democrats in the U.S. Senate.

Gen. Pryor was elected to the office of Alabama attorney general as a Republican. His specialty has been prosecuting white collar criminals. He is a conservative, of course, and also a Roman Catholic.

Democrats have blocked his nomination because of his conservatism and for using his office to help raise funds for GOP candidates. If his appointment to the federal bench is not approved, he is young enough (early 40s) to serve Alabama as governor, U.S. rep., or U.S. sen.

I think the Roy Moore case and all the legal issues surrounding it have moved Pryor a bit towards the political center. Unfortunately for him, the Democrats in the U.S. Senate may not see it that way.