Why are judges listed as non-partisan

[rudeguy]

When they are not?

Also, how can I find out what way they swing?

 

[surfsatwerk]

When they are not?

Also, how can I find out what way they swing?

Show a little leg and ask them to buy you drink.

 

[Juddog]

Show a little leg and ask them to buy you drink.

Or act like a Republican and meet them in the men's bathroom stall.

 

[Phokus]

or act like a republican and meet them in the men's bathroom stall.

wide stance :awe:

 

[PokerGuy]

For all the other races, they list the R or D (or some I) next to their name. When it comes to the judicial positions, they don't.... so I did quick google searches on each candidate to see. Lo and behold a lot of the judges were listed as part of democratic or republican activist groups or organizations, and I was able to use that information to make sure to vote for the correct folks.

 

[umbrella39]

When they are not?

Also, how can I find out what way they swing?

In Michigan Stephen Markman, Brian Zahra and Colleen O’Brien are the ones getting big contributions from the GOP

Bridget Mary McCormack, Connie Marie Kelley and Shelia Johnson are the dem counterparts.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

In Texas they show the judge or justice part affiliation. Here's the sample ballot for where I live.

http://www.co.fort-bend.tx.us/upload/images/elections_administration/sample_ballots/11121007D.pdf

 

[Thump553]

There are excellent reasons why most states (where judges are elected) don't list thier political afilliations. Nearly everyone involved in the judicial system will honestly tell you they want a judge with an active intellectual mind with a firm sense of justice-and that party affilation is pretty insignificant.

I've practiced law in both a state that elects judges (without indentifying their party) and a state where they are appointed for set terms by the governor, confirmed by the legislature. Both systems have their benefits-you get less "local boy" effect in the appointed state, but heaven help you in counsel on the other side is a legislator.

 

[kia75]

When they are not?

Judges are supposed to act in a non-partisan manner, voting for the rule of law instead of what party they support. This is very important when various laws come up that are supported\opposed by certain parties.

Think of Justice Roberts and the ACA. Republicans appointed him. Obama voted against his confirmation. Yet on the ACA Roberts sided with those that thought it was legal. If Roberts wanted to hurt Obama, or get back at him for not confirming him, he could have done that. His party hated the bill, and it would have been a political coup for Republicans if the Republican Roberts had struck down the law. But the point of the courts isn't to play politics, or to handle past grievances, it's to decide the legality of law.

So Roberts ruled for the ACA, and thus helped preserver the reputation of the court as a neutral party.

Also, how can I find out what way they swing?

Read their court opinions.

 

[MovingTarget]

There are excellent reasons why most states (where judges are elected) don't list thier political afilliations. Nearly everyone involved in the judicial system will honestly tell you they want a judge with an active intellectual mind with a firm sense of justice-and that party affilation is pretty insignificant.

I've practiced law in both a state that elects judges (without indentifying their party) and a state where they are appointed for set terms by the governor, confirmed by the legislature. Both systems have their benefits-you get less "local boy" effect in the appointed state, but heaven help you in counsel on the other side is a legislator.

This. I WISH that my state didn't list party affiliation. It has gotten so lopsided here that the vast majority of judges running for election are Republicans running unopposed. The real election has become the Republican primary. Heck, Roy Moore is even running again for the Chief Justice position that he was removed from during that whole "middle of the night ten commandments monument" thing. The sad thing is, he will probably get reelected due to party voting. Reason doesn't stand a chance.

 

[PokerGuy]

In Michigan Stephen Markman, Brian Zahra and Colleen O’Brien are the ones getting big contributions from the GOP

Bridget Mary McCormack, Connie Marie Kelley and Shelia Johnson are the dem counterparts.

So, in short, for those of you that live there, make sure you don't vote for the latter three, cast your vote for the former three.

Read their court opinions.

Yeah, because I'm going to dig into years of court opinions and read them all for all the candidates and figure out which ones are good. Please, get real. The party affiliation is a decent start, and after that you can go by various groups that rate judges (bar associations, law groups etc) to get a sense, but that's about the extent of the effort you could reasonably expect from a voter.

 

[hal2kilo]

When they are not?

Also, how can I find out what way they swing?

Your local Republican and Democratic parties, many have websites, will usually make recommendations for positions like that. Just because a particular party recommends a non-partisan candidate or judge position does not necessarily mean they are affiliated with that party but they like the track record and such.

Personally, I think non-partisan positions are a crock. Mainly, because I don't believe anybody is non-partisan. I still can't figure out why I need to vote for the county auditor. I vote for a county commissioner who I trust to select competent employees.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This. I WISH that my state didn't list party affiliation. It has gotten so lopsided here that the vast majority of judges running for election are Republicans running unopposed. The real election has become the Republican primary. Heck, Roy Moore is even running again for the Chief Justice position that he was removed from during that whole "middle of the night ten commandments monument" thing. The sad thing is, he will probably get reelected due to party voting. Reason doesn't stand a chance.

I don't know the answer to this- what mechanism exists to prevent parties from supporting justices? If they are supposed to be apolitical but are funded in large part by one side as the other partisan politics exists no matter how affiliation is listed or if it is at all.

 

[nehalem256]

Justice is not a Republican or Democrat ideal

 

[Thump553]

Yeah, because I'm going to dig into years of court opinions and read them all for all the candidates and figure out which ones are good. Please, get real. The party affiliation is a decent start, and after that you can go by various groups that rate judges (bar associations, law groups etc) to get a sense, but that's about the extent of the effort you could reasonably expect from a voter.

If you are talking about a local elected trial judge, ask a few local attorneys whose opinion you trust. If you are talking about appellate judges, you can do the same thing as well as what you suggested as well as keeping up on the local news. In actuality very few judicial races are contested at all. Surprising as it may seem, I'd generally reccommend keeping the incumbent in office unless someone states a strong legit reason to you to do otherwise.

The recent influx of money, ads and special interest groups in judicial races in some states is the devil's own work as far as I'm concerned. Good judges frequently make decisions that can be very unpopular with the general public.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

judges are the most political and corrupt of all politicians. theres no accountability at all, they can do whatever they want and hide behind the "infallibility" of the judiciary and ridiculous latitude in "interpreting" the law, and they take full advantage of that. they are also the least vetted of all politicians. so you get lots of stupid and sleazy people as judges

 

[Nemesis 1]

Justice is not a Republican or Democrat ideal

SO true The fact that lady justice is blind should tell you much . You know how the Bar name was created . The laywers in london would meet at the pub and sit at the Bar and decide how they would destroy the world threw laws

 

[hal2kilo]

SO true The fact that lady justice is blind should tell you much . You know how the Bar name was created . The laywers in london would meet at the pub and sit at the Bar and decide how they would destroy the world threw laws

Never fail to disappoint.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...nICADw&usg=AFQjCNG4j95LePCVO6_56IxTI2za8D71dQ

 

[Fern]

Your local Republican and Democratic parties, many have websites, will usually make recommendations for positions like that.
-snip-

Good answer.

In my area the Dem and Repub parties have volunteers that hand out flyers with a list of the judges they recommend. If you can't find any info on the websites, stop by an early voting place (assuming you have that) and look for volunteers prowling the parking lot with flyers etc.

Fern

 

[EagleKeeper]

judges are the most political and corrupt of all politicians. theres no accountability at all, they can do whatever they want and hide behind the "infallibility" of the judiciary and ridiculous latitude in "interpreting" the law, and they take full advantage of that. they are also the least vetted of all politicians. so you get lots of stupid and sleazy people as judges

Judges that are appointed for life may the the accountability problem.

There are also judges that have to stand for re-election based on their track record.

Most of your judges that are considered to be stupid and sleazy come from those types of areas.
Also, many are tagged by idiots who have come in front of them and not walked away scot free.