ManusJustus said:
People can choose if they want to shop at a grocery store. If a store has high prices or sells me sour milk, I can bring my business to another private grocerty store. Enough people 'vote' against giving that store their business, then that store is no longer in business. Public goods don't work that way. Thats why its important to vote for a judge or vote for a politician who appoints a judge. Whatever system you support, you should strive for it to be the best. You are taking one idea that works in one place and trying to apply it to everything else, but the problem is that even though a method can work great in one situation it can fail miserabley in another. You're like a carpenter who thinks he only needs one tool to build a house; the hammer works great nailing the floor down, but good luck trying to cut that board in half. |
I don’t understand how "choice" would be a benefit in this context. When you have judges that owe their judicial appointment to a political process you create a system where political motivations drive judgements within the system not the law as written; and you end up with an inconsistent legal system full of arbitrary judgements that are supported by no written law or legal precedence. This also tends to result in a tyranny of the majority where anything can be justified as long as it is supported by the majority of voters at a given time; where a law on gay marriage, union reform, or a public healthcare bill that has passed through the legislature is determined to be constitutional based on the desire to be re-elected or re-appointed not based on what the constitution says.
