Constitutional to Limit Judicial Candidates' Speech?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by goofyfish, Mar 28, 2002.

  1. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    This case was heard before the US Supreme Court Tuesday.
    It appears to me a violation of free speech. Although the law may be quite beneficial, it doesn't rise to the emergency, life-and-death level of provoking a riot in a crowded theater.

    On the other hand, it has been upheld by 2 federal courts and by the Minnesota Supreme Court, so others see it differently. Perhaps the real solution is to end the election of judges.

    Peace.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. justagirl Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334
    I prefer some type of appoinment.. I base it mostly on a retired Judge that exposed the weakness of our system. But an appointment by whom becomes the real problem as it could lead to a worst situation.

    Freedom of speech should be protected in this country, afterall, it is what gives me the right to bash politics...lol
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    I think in Aust (someone corect me if im wrong) apointments for judges is done by OTHER judges to proserve the "separation of powers"
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    This article by Stephen Gillers says that the Minnesota law is unconstitutional, but still recommends some restrictions on what judicial candidates may say. Is it a good compromise?
    Certainly people would like to know what their judges think so they can be certain to vote in judges who reflect their personal opinions. Unfortunately this can be bad for any minority (minority in terms of a given stand on an issue). Sometimes merely reflecting majority will is not in the best interests of the country (tyranny of the majority).

    Peace.
     
  8. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Surly judges shouldn't stand for ANYTHING (they are NOT politins). They are there to administer the LAW so they have to be TOTALY OBJECTIVE
     
  9. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    In a perfect system, surely. Humans are flawed, however, and life-experiences and subtle prejudices will color anyone's interpretation of a given set of circumstances.

    Peace.
     
  10. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    Bollocks, I say! You haven't met MEEEE!!!!!!

    PS: I'm drunk.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    DRUNK??? At 9:20 in the morning???
    (and don't gimme that crap about "different time zones.")

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Peace.
     
  12. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    I'm in my very own timezone at the moment, and it's all blurry. But I believe it includes pizza some time soon, so that's okay.
     

Share This Page