Why do some people actually believe that appointing judges in Texas would either take the politics out of courts, or as some put it, take away the public perception of political influence in Texas courts?
The elitists of both political parties are back to pushing very hard to move Texans away from electing their judges. These folk already have the support of the know-nothings and liberals in most big media editorial boards as well as much of the governing class, whose members already arrogantly believe they should make our choices for us. The next target for the appoint-the-judges crowd is the great suburban middle which has proven time and again it will swallow most any pill if sold as being “fair” or “equitable.”
A problem the crowd wanting to seize the power of the Texas judiciary for themselves has is that electing judges, on the face of it, seems more fair and equitable to most voters than giving some all-powerful exclusive commission or other official that power.
But what I have found most interesting in twenty-five years of fighting this issue is how many lawyers and politicians express the idea that our elective system causes the public to question the impartiality of judges more than an appointed system. Where’s the evidence for that fantasy?
Take this example from the AP about the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling for Texas that Governor Abbott has the right to include most abortions in the emergency order prohibiting elective medical procedures:
“The ruling was agreed to by Judges Jennifer Walker Elrod, an appointee of President George W. Bush, and Kyle Duncan, an appointee of President Donald Trump. Judge James L. Dennis, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, dissented and opposed any stay of the lower-court order.”
This is the rule not the exception in reporting on politically-charged cases and shows that the Federal appointment system is not seen as less politically biased than any other by the citizenry.
Appointing judges does not take perception of politics out of courts
The elitists of both political parties are back to pushing very hard to move Texans away from electing their judges. These folk already have the support of the know-nothings and liberals in most big media editorial boards as well as much of the governing class, whose members already arrogantly believe they should make our choices for us. The next target for the appoint-the-judges crowd is the great suburban middle which has proven time and again it will swallow most any pill if sold as being “fair” or “equitable.”
A problem the crowd wanting to seize the power of the Texas judiciary for themselves has is that electing judges, on the face of it, seems more fair and equitable to most voters than giving some all-powerful exclusive commission or other official that power.
But what I have found most interesting in twenty-five years of fighting this issue is how many lawyers and politicians express the idea that our elective system causes the public to question the impartiality of judges more than an appointed system. Where’s the evidence for that fantasy?
Take this example from the AP about the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling for Texas that Governor Abbott has the right to include most abortions in the emergency order prohibiting elective medical procedures:
“The ruling was agreed to by Judges Jennifer Walker Elrod, an appointee of President George W. Bush, and Kyle Duncan, an appointee of President Donald Trump. Judge James L. Dennis, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, dissented and opposed any stay of the lower-court order.”
This is the rule not the exception in reporting on politically-charged cases and shows that the Federal appointment system is not seen as less politically biased than any other by the citizenry.