Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Also I have to say I find it sad how politicised your judiciary is. You really don't have an independent judiciary at all, it's strongly linked both to the executive and legislative branches which is why you have recognized conservative and liberal wings. You shouldn't, you should just have impartial judges. |
Yeah, eh. I think it has to do with the fact that the federal judges are nominated by the president.
I'm not sure the judiciary would be any less "impartial" however... unless your definition of impartial is conservative.
Ohio is THE swing state, pretty much the perfect equaliberium of Republican and Democrat. When you run for a Judge in Ohio by LAW nobody is allowed to mention your political leanings and you can run on NOTHING but your decisions as a judge and record in general on crime.
All major judges in Ohio are "Conservative" people just want conservative judges
"Liberal" judges are in a disadvantage in such a system because well... Liberal judges are the ones who make "new" rulings not consistant with older law.
They're also more likely to let criminals off on technicalities and tend to look weak on crime.
Basically liberal judges tend to lose as far as I can tell because their rulings are things they can be attacked for while you can't really attack the Conservative judge for upholding convention and sending murderers to jail.
|
Judges shouldn't be elected. They really really shouldn't.
|
I don't see how you avoid judges being nothing but political tools otherwise.
At least in a system like Ohio you have to run on the merits of your rulings, rather then the system we have now.
