Why are judges elected or selected

We’re taught justice is blind, and yet the very nature of how judges get to be judges goes completely against that notion. And it’s pretty glaringly obvious, especially recently. I guess I wouldn’t mind if we were taught that justice is completely relative, but we’re not.

Seems to me it’s not far-fetched to envision a system where judges, lawyers, and probably jurists too (i.e. the whole spectrum of law participants), were considered a special social class, and provided with special training to be impartial, non-partisan, etc. And I don’t mean through law schools, which only serve to perpetuate the current myth of blind justice.

Right now, it seems like some, if not a lot, are using their translation of the Bible as their law book.

In spite of the “Establishment Clause”. Nobody is paying any attention to the Constitution anymore.

The world is reverting back to a purely predatory world, instead of a humane world where all living things exist in a grand symbiotic relationship.

I have worked in law since 1985, and is still partially active, even retired.

2 questions, independence and impartiality.

To guarantee the first, one must ensure a fair system of selection and training.

To select a judge, one can hold a contest, an election a draw or a choice by the political power. The last system is the worst.

In France, most judges are professional, chosen by contests, and trained in a special school. Some first level judges are elected or chosen by their constituents, among them the consular judges who sit in the commercial courts, and the prudhommal advisers, who sit on the prudhomme councils. The criminal courts are made up of a mixture of professional judges and citizens drawn by lot.

Once selected judges independence is guaranteed by their irremovability. They are assured to keep their functions and cannot be removed before the term.

For most of the professional judges, advancing in the carrier depends from a special institution, the superior council of the judiciary, a mix of elected judges, of people having a seat as a result of their functions, and nominated people.

The system functions globally well, not perfectly. Some months ago, a lawyer chosen by the president as minister of justice tried to obtain a disciplinary sanction against judge who had displeased him, against the opinion of his services. He got rebuffed as these judges were cleared easily.

Impartiality is something different. It depends from the judge himself. Every one judges with his knowledge, according the way he sees the world, under the influence of his prejudices.

The laws give a judge a big power to balance and choose his decision. there are two limits, appeal and collegiality.

Beyond that, no system is perfect.

Last, the judges are in the world. And they share the bias of the people. they reflect them, without even perceiving them.

Their selected by the establishment including the supreme court not by the majority of people.

Their bias are a reflection of who they hang with, not necessarily of the majority. If you have a judge that is conservative, he probably hangs with people who are conservatives. If the judge is liberal, their friends outside of the supreme court are probably liberal.

Yes but, beyond that, there are social trends, and ways of thinking, the ways world is seen evolve.

Most of the times the changes go in the right direction.

For instance, in 1900, a white judge could be a liberal, a conservative, a democrat or a republican. Whatever he was, in 90 % of the cases, he would have seen black people not exactly as white ones, and would have thought that segregation was justified.

In May 1896, the Supreme Court issued a 7–1 decision against Plessy, ruling that the Louisiana law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and stating that although the Fourteenth Amendment established the legal equality of whites and blacks it did not and could not require the elimination of all “distinctions based upon color”.

Nowadays, no US supreme court member would dare to think that.

Some changes go in the wrong direction.