How can we pick good Judges?

[tackdriver]

If I had a magic wand, and could change only one thing for the biggest impact, it would be the courts. The courts are critical for our system to function as designed. Today, the courts are wildly dysfunctional. They absolutely do not function the way most citizens think they do, particularly in civil cases. The corruption of the game is the fault of the players. The extent of the corruption is fault of the referees!

Here is my question: How in the world is the average person supposed to vote for a good Judge? I don't know anything about these people. Even the acting Judges are rarely talked about. When things are said in the news, it's "The Court" did this or that, not "Joe Smith the Judge decided this or that". How can we gauge which candidates will do the job the way we expect? How can we hold them accountable once they're on the bench?

It's frustrating that something this critical seems this hopeless.

Any advice is most welcome.

 

[Tryin']

Talk to your local cops, especially outside of the big five counties.

 

[Twangbanger]

Most people don't know cops, and only interact with the process of choosing judges when confronted with a list of unfamiliar names on an election ballot. I have often wondered about this question. My high school government teacher said every time he heard of a judge letting an obvious POS off easy, he'd mark that person's name down on a card to remember.

I do think it's interesting that judges are some of the lowest-profile races. They don't seem to campaign as much, participate in debates, run commercials, or tell the community what they're about.

Is there some kind of professional legal standard that doing the above is considered, for lack of a better term, professional malpractice?

We've definitely seen "the other side" get interested in Prosecutor races. You have to wonder if/when they'll do the same with judges.

 

[bwframe]

No way to say this gracefully, but some judges will only do their job when they come to understand that they will be held accountable.

There is no room for activism from the bench. Yet we just put an activist on SCOTUS.

 

[tackdriver]

Talk to your local cops, especially outside of the big five counties.

Thanks for the suggestion. That is at least a workable solution, at least for Criminal Law cases. I think I'm even more concerned with Civil cases. Criminal at least gets some publicity. People just don't understand how much Civil cases shape the world around us, and how much damage an bad Judge can do.

 

[Jeepster48439]

My philosophy has been if it says Incumbent next to their name, they don't get my vote.

I roll a die that has no #1 spot on it. Then I count down that number on the list and that is who I vote for.

Any one got a better system?

 

[tackdriver]

Most people don't know cops, and only interact with the process of choosing judges when confronted with a list of unfamiliar names on an election ballot. I have often wondered about this question. My high school government teacher said every time he heard of a judge letting an obvious POS off easy, he'd mark that person's name down on a card to remember.

I do think it's interesting that judges are some of the lowest-profile races. They don't seem to campaign as much, participate in debates, run commercials, or tell the community what they're about.

Is there some kind of professional legal standard that doing the above is considered, for lack of a better term, professional malpractice?

We've definitely seen "the other side" get interested in Prosecutor races. You have to wonder if/when they'll do the same with judges.

Think about Hamilton County: If they get into the Republican primary, They're half way there. If they win the primary, that almost no one pays attention to, they are pretty much elected.

 

[tackdriver]

My philosophy has been if it says Incumbent next to their name, they don't get my vote.

I roll a die that has no #1 spot on it. Then I count down that number on the list and that is who I vote for.

Any one got a better system?

Thanks for the input. That's been my practice as well. If I don't know anything about any of them, I at least want turnover so that none can sink there roots too deep. The practice hasn't worked very well so far, so I'm looking for a new one. Until I figure one out, I'll probably keep doing what your doing.

 

[tackdriver]

No way to say this gracefully, but some judges will only do their job when they come to understand that they will be held accountable.

There is no room for activism from the bench. Yet we just put an activist on SCOTUS.

This! ^

The problem is that there is no realistic way to hold them accountable. Sure, there are a few theoretical ways, but they are not realistic except for the most extreme abuses. So, it's all the more reason to get the right people on the bench to begin with.

 

[cobber]

First off see how long they’ve been a lawyer. Have they done both defense and prosecution? Do they actually take cases to trial?
Are they backed by the local party machine?
You can search by attorney name in MyCase. Check out their motions or briefs filed in causes.
League of Women Voters may have online info. Grain of salt required there.
Check them in the Indiana Roll of Attorneys for any major disciplinary actions.
A lot of this info is readily available.
Now, as to prosecutors…

 

[cobber]

Most people don't know cops, and only interact with the process of choosing judges when confronted with a list of unfamiliar names on an election ballot. I have often wondered about this question. My high school government teacher said every time he heard of a judge letting an obvious POS off easy, he'd mark that person's name down on a card to remember.

I do think it's interesting that judges are some of the lowest-profile races. They don't seem to campaign as much, participate in debates, run commercials, or tell the community what they're about.

Is there some kind of professional legal standard that doing the above is considered, for lack of a better term, professional malpractice?

We've definitely seen "the other side" get interested in Prosecutor races. You have to wonder if/when they'll do the same with judges.

Judicial candidates are very constrained on how much they can campaign by the ‘Canons of Judicial Ethics’.
Basically if you’re an incumbent or running on the ticket in a county dominated by X party, you’re a shoo-in.

 

[tackdriver]

First off see how long they’ve been a lawyer. Have they done both defense and prosecution? Do they actually take cases to trial?
Are they backed by the local party machine?
You can search by attorney name in MyCase. Check out their motions or briefs filed in causes.
League of Women Voters may have online info. Grain of salt required there.
Check them in the Indiana Roll of Attorneys for any major disciplinary actions.
A lot of this info is readily available.
Now, as to prosecutors…

Cobber -
Thanks for the suggestions, especially the MyCase. I'm definitely going to try that out.

Thanks,

 

[KLB]

There is also the issue of many of them having nobody running against them.

 

[pmbiker]

I was in a domestic relationship with a local Judge for a few years.....so I got a bit of the inside scoop.

At least on the local or county level, you'd be surprised at how non-political most of them are. Big egos, lots of infighting and backstabbing.

Obviously, the higher up you go the more important their decisions become. At least here locally, we don't have issues with judicial activism, yet.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't feel like small town local judicial elections are quite as heavy as those in larger cities or for the appellate/circuit courts.

 

[bwframe]

This! ^

The problem is that there is no realistic way to hold them accountable. Sure, there are a few theoretical ways, but they are not realistic except for the most extreme abuses. So, it's all the more reason to get the right people on the bench to begin with.

Justice John Roberts knew he was accountable for his ruling and consequently the coward wouldn't look at election fraud for fear of "riots."

How many other lower level judges refused to look at 2020 election fraud due to fear of accountability?


.

 

[tackdriver]

Justice John Roberts knew he was accountable for his ruling and consequently the coward wouldn't look at election fraud for fear of "riots."

How many other lower level judges refused to look at 2020 election fraud due to fear of accountability?


.

Exactly!

People keep saying "We're a nation of laws!" when it suites them. It seems to me, the humble citizen, that when it really matters - there's always a reason to disregard, distort, or dilute the laws. The courts are big on accountability for citizens and businesses, just none for anyone that works inside the system (judges, lawyers, etc.).

 

[bwframe]

Exactly!

People keep saying "We're a nation of laws!" when it suites them. It seems to me, the humble citizen, that when it really matters - there's always a reason to disregard, distort, or dilute the laws. The courts are big on accountability for citizens and businesses, just none for anyone that works inside the system (judges, lawyers, etc.).

It seems to be so one sided. Out newest SCOTUS judge made activist judgements that were correctly reversed by appellate courts. Barely even discussed at her confirmation hearing, much less reported on for the public to know.


.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Well since judges are lawyers, is there such a thing as a good one?

 

[BigRed]

Justice John Roberts knew he was accountable for his ruling and consequently the coward wouldn't look at election fraud for fear of "riots."

How many other lower level judges refused to look at 2020 election fraud due to fear of accountability?


.

BINGO!

 

[pmbiker]

Well since judges are lawyers, is there such a thing as a good one?

Anyone who chooses to be a judge is voluntarily working for 1/3 to 1/10 the salary they would make as an attorney in private practice. That prospect alone usually weeds out most of the sleeze.