Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (167223)	11/25/2008 10:19:18 PM
From: Travis_Bickle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

electing them doesn't make a difference. any lawyer who challenges a sitting judge in an election is begging to have his life destroyed. only difference is when the judge is elected you have to send him several hundred dollars every fourth year to keep in his good graces.

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (167223)	11/25/2008 10:33:49 PM
From: Peter V	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

The idea of unelected judges is to insulate them from political pressure, to make the "right" decision no matter the political fallout. After all, you have the Legislative and Executive branches on the political side, and if it is really important, they can override the Judiciary by amending the Constitution. Admittedly, amending even a state Constitution is no easy feat. But if judges are swayed by the same political pressures as the other branches, where are the real checks and balances? If the majority is seeking to politically oppress the minority, who is going to stop it? Maybe it would help if you explain what you mean by "corrupt."