Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Judges in Boston
Message-ID: <801@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-May-86 13:33:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.801
Posted: Tue May 20 13:33:57 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 23-May-86 08:02:48 EDT
References: <2927@decwrl.DEC.COM> <513@snow.warwick.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA
Lines: 46

> 
> Are any judges in the USA or elsewhere elected? I feel sorry for anybody
> who has to be tried by a judge facing re-election.
> -- 
> 
>         ...!mcvax!ukc!warwick!rpt

Federal judges serve for life.  In theory, they can be impeached by the
U.S. Senate and removed for crimes or senility.  In practice, only seven
Federal judges have been removed from office since 1789.  (Although a
number have been strongly encouraged to leave office because of senility
and ill health.)

Judges in many states have to be confirmed by a vote of the population
at regular intervals -- note they aren't running against someone else.
The voters vote "YES" or "NO" on them.  Here in California, municipal
judges (and I believe superior judges) are subject to election just 
like other posts.

It's an interesting problem.  The basis of the American system is 
separation of powers is that judges be effective counterbalances to
legislative or executive abuses.  This argues for life terms, like
Federal judges.  (The U.S. Constitution has the life term provision
because of the long series of abuses by English & British monarchs
of judges who actually dispensed justice.)  On the other hand, when
the President (for Federal judges) or the Governor (for State judges)
appoints someone for life, they may be a complete bozo.

Here in California we have the interesting case where the Democrats,
who purport to believe in democracy and the unfettered will of the
people, are arguing that the judiciary should be "above politics",
while the Republicans who in theory support restrictions on majority
will, are trying very hard to remove a truly awful California
State Supreme Court judge named Rose Bird.  ("Truly awful": the 
legislature made the penalty for rape more severe if "great bodily
harm" was inflicted on the victim, figuring the phrase was pretty
clear.  A rapist was tried and convicted of rape.  During the trial,
it was established that the victim was 1) beaten, 2) burned repeatedly
with a cigarette, 3) brutally sodomized, 4) a four-inch knife blade
was inserted up to the hilt into her abdomen.  Rose Bird wrote the
opinion that since "great boodilyharm" hadn't been defined by the
legislature, that the original jury was wrong to conclude that the
victim had suffered "great bodily harm".  This sort of nonsense is
quite typical from Rose Bird.)

Clayton E. Cramer