In Judgment Of Judges

The NY Times notes a growing movement to rein in "activist judges" at the state level with direct elections, which loosely translated means "Corporations using the Citizens United decision to buy mobs to dispatch judges who have silly liberal ideals that don't jibe with oligarchy."

After the State Supreme Court here stunned the nation by making this the first state in the heartland to allow same-sex marriage, Iowa braced for its sleepy judicial elections to turn into referendums on gay marriage.


The three Supreme Court justices on the ballot this year are indeed the targets of a well-financed campaign to oust them. But the effort has less to do with undoing same-sex marriage — which will remain even if the judges do not — than sending a broader message far beyond this state’s borders: voters can remove judges whose opinions they dislike.

Around the country, judicial elections that were designed to be as apolitical as possible are suddenly as contentious as any another race.

In Kansas, anti-abortion activists are seeking to recall a justice. In Illinois, business interests are campaigning against the chief justice after a case that removed a cap on malpractice liability, prompting him to run a television ad that opens with the declaration, “I am not a politician.” And a conservative group called Clear the Bench Colorado is citing a host of decisions in seeking to oust the full slate of justices on the ballot there, urging voters, “Be a citizen, not a subject.”

The merit selection system, which is used to pick supreme court justices in 16 states, including Colorado, Iowa and Kansas, was established to reduce politics’ influence on the composition of the judiciary, in part by avoiding the expensive and bitter campaigns seen in states where two candidates compete. (For each vacant post in Iowa, a committee nominates three candidates, one of whom is named by the governor. Judges stand unopposed for retention after their first year and then every eight years.)

“The system was not designed so that people could reject one vote or one case,” said Rachel P. Caufield, a Drake University professor who studies judicial selection. “It was designed so that people could get rid of unfit judges. It was meant as an extreme measure.” She added, “The system has worked well — until now.” 

In merit selection states, the notion that entire slates of judicial benches have to be thrown out is ridiculous.  The greater problem is that this represents again the Tea Party tenet of mob rule, where an angry democracy can make any changes they want to system of government under the name of "representation", and in turn those who can manipulate the mob control the country.

We've seen this time and time again where corporations buy every aspect of our election system, and now that the Citizens United decision has removed any checks on campaign finance, and of course Republicans will prevent any legislation doing so, businesses have free reign to buy as much political influence as they can afford using political advocacy groups.

Our system is broken, and until Citizens United is reversed or contained, we will forever be at mercy of mob rule whipped up by big business.