Top Alabama judge ousted over gay marriage refusal. - Polidicks

[IMG]http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/00CF/production/_91470200_47d01aad-a0ce-4bfa-a55c-b83bd222dcc3.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]Alabama's top judge has been suspended for the remainder of his term for defying federal court rulings that legalized same-sex marriage. Roy Moore, 69, violated judicial ethics with an order seen as directing probate judges to deny marriage licences to gay couples, a judicial panel ruled. The decision was a "politically motivated effort" by radical groups, he said. His lawyer has vowed to appeal. It is the second suspension for Mr Moore, an outspoken conservative. In 2003, he was removed for refusing to take down a monument of the Ten Commandments he installed at a state building. He was re-elected as chief justice of the state's Supreme Court in 2012.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37528317[/url]

And therein we have the reason why judges should not be elected positions.

Removed for refusing to take down a monument of the ten commandments in a state building Good riddance. We don't need people who feel the need to shove their religion down our throats

[quote]The decision was a "politically motivated effort" by radical groups, he said.[/quote] You say that like it means something. "This political decision was motivated by politics!" It's like blaming your kid for taking food out of the fridge and saying he only did it because he was hungry.

[quote]The decision was a "politically motivated effort" by radical groups, he said.[/quote] [QUOTE=Omali;51136043]You say that like it means something. "This political decision was motivated by politics!" It's like blaming your kid for taking food out of the fridge and saying he only did it because he was hungry.[/QUOTE] And I'd like to add that his decision was a "religiously motivated effort" by a scumbag.

Alabama's state government is soo shitty it's comical. Our own governor Bentley gave his staff and cabinet like 15k raises while state employees and teachers took a pay cut, let alone the dude fucking preached about traditional family values who he ended up getting caught having an affair. Dude mismanages so much shit and begins to wonder why the state can't pay it's employees half the time when he giving raises to all his butt buddy judges and cabinet members.

Wow this is the second time he's served as Chief Justice, and [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore#Ten_Commandments_monument_controversy]the second time he's been removed from office[/url]

[QUOTE=DogGunn;51136021]And therein we have the reason why judges should not be elected positions.[/QUOTE] i'm actually baffled as to why elected judges are a thing, it's a downright terrible idea when you give a few seconds of thought to it

Suspended for the rest of his term with no pay. My state did the right thing for once. Woohoo

This guy is a cunt and I've been eagerly awaiting this news. He should have been barred from reelection after the first incident.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51136149]i'm actually baffled as to why elected judges are a thing, it's a downright terrible idea when you give a few seconds of thought to it[/QUOTE] Elected justices are an old concept that isn't in-and-of-itself bad. I'm sure you can imagine how tyrannical it sounds for someone to say, "we're going to appoint, with no say from you, someone who will decide how every law that you follow will be interpreted." I'm sure you can imagine the [I]immense[/I] realm of possible abuses that could come from any government having the power to freely appoint justices for no-specified term, possibly life. (If you cannot, I'm going to point you at Poland, who recently packed their supreme court.) Therefor, if justices are elected, usually for a set term, it allows the public to make up it's own mind over whether or not that important word, [B]justice,[/B] is being carried out. If the judge is say, handing criminals overly harsh or unduly lenient sentences, that judge will be voted out. If the judge is failing to uphold the law, decided upon by the people via their representative government, the judge will be thrown out. On the whole, if the judge, a fallible person, is failing to uphold the wishes of their community or failing to bring justice to the community, they will be replaced. This is not to say I'm personally in favor of publicly elected judges, but the idea is hardly, "terrible." In fact, it seems like you're the only one who gave it, "a few seconds of thought."

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51137415]Elected justices are an old concept that isn't in-and-of-itself bad. I'm sure you can imagine how tyrannical it sounds for someone to say, "we're going to appoint, with no say from you, someone who will decide how every law that you follow will be interpreted." I'm sure you can imagine the [I]immense[/I] realm of possible abuses that could come from any government having the power to freely appoint justices for no-specified term, possibly life. (If you cannot, I'm going to point you at Poland, who recently packed their supreme court.) Therefor, if justices are elected, usually for a set term, it allows the public to make up it's own mind over whether or not that important word, [B]justice,[/B] is being carried out. If the judge is say, handing criminals overly harsh or unduly lenient sentences, that judge will be voted out. If the judge is failing to uphold the law, decided upon by the people via their representative government, the judge will be thrown out. On the whole, if the judge, a fallible person, is failing to uphold the wishes of their community or failing to bring justice to the community, they will be replaced. This is not to say I'm personally in favor of publicly elected judges, but the idea is hardly, "terrible." In fact, it seems like you're the only one who gave it, "a few seconds of thought."[/QUOTE] except no the point of a judge is that they should give impartial and just decisions based strictly on the law of the land - free of politics allowing judges to be /elected/ into power introduces politics where it does not deserve to be. say you have two judges running in a race and they have to convince people to vote for them. it's fine for a politician to say "i'm gonna raise taxes". it's absolutely not ok for a judge to say that they will decide future cases on something else besides the law and the facts. the decisions of the judge on the ruling is therefore being influenced by politics rather than what is just. plus there's the obvious fact that judges aren't politicians. judges are judges. campaign contributions influence judicial decisions - and this is an extremely extremely bad precedent to set. politicians can be very unpopular and this can lead to people losing faith in the political process (as many americans have in recent years). what do you think will happen when judges inevitably morph into just another kind of politician?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51138489]except no the point of a judge is that they should give impartial and just decisions based strictly on the law of the land - free of politics allowing judges to be /elected/ into power introduces politics where it does not deserve to be. say you have two judges running in a race and they have to convince people to vote for them. it's fine for a politician to say "i'm gonna raise taxes". it's absolutely not ok for a judge to say that they will decide future cases on something else besides the law and the facts. the decisions of the judge on the ruling is therefore being influenced by politics rather than what is just. plus there's the obvious fact that judges aren't politicians. judges are judges. campaign contributions influence judicial decisions - and this is an extremely extremely bad precedent to set. politicians can be very unpopular and this can lead to people losing faith in the political process (as many americans have in recent years). what do you think will happen when judges inevitably morph into just another kind of politician?[/QUOTE] See the supreme court "liberal vs conservative". Judge elections are "This judge has been soft on this offense, letting X amount of people free. Judge B will bring back fair rulings on all offenses."

[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;51136092] the dude fucking preached about traditional family values who he ended up getting caught having an affair. .[/QUOTE] Pretty sure its confirmation bias, but I swear this only happens to those-type people

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51138995]See the supreme court "liberal vs conservative". Judge elections are "This judge has been soft on this offense, letting X amount of people free. Judge B will bring back fair rulings on all offenses."[/QUOTE] But then judges need to raise money for campaigns that are very costly, likely around a million plus. Judges calling up rich benefactors of politics(which is how most fundraising gets done in the political world) seems wrong to me. Asking the public at large for money seems wrong to me. You cannot expect justice to really be dealt when you're dealing with a judge elected to a seat on the patronage of those he might have to preside over. Canada does this much differently, and my dad before he passed was along the path to eventually become a judge having a successful legal career and an untarnished record. One of his life long friends was a judge, and was appointed there by an elected government. Judges operate off of precedent or "case law" or common law by in large for most of their duties. The idea of judges being elected, then making their own decisions partially informed by their political slant, their constituencies slant, and even donations is absurd to me and just sounds ripe for corruption. It doesn't really sound in line with case law and how judges traditionally operate.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51138995]Judge elections are "This judge has been soft on this offense, letting X amount of people free. Judge B will bring back fair rulings on all offenses."[/QUOTE] this is why it shouldn't be left to the public judges represent the law, and as such should serve nobody else. electing judges just means allowing a massive avenue for corruption and nepotism to enter the government and for the breakdown in rule of law and by extension one of the core pillars of american society. to have elected judges means that anybody with money can pay the judges election campaigns, who will then rule favourably to the donor when a legal case comes

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51138995]See the supreme court "liberal vs conservative". Judge elections are "This judge has been soft on this offense, letting X amount of people free. Judge B will bring back fair rulings on all offenses."[/QUOTE] And you trust the voting public to vote according to fair rulings instead of policy? I wouldn't trust [I]myself[/I] to vote through an unbiased lens on who has been strictly upholding the law and not be influenced by my political opinions, I'm sure as shit not going to trust the voting public as a whole.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51138489]except no the point of a judge is that they should give impartial and just decisions based strictly on the law of the land - free of politics allowing judges to be /elected/ into power introduces politics where it does not deserve to be. say you have two judges running in a race and they have to convince people to vote for them. it's fine for a politician to say "i'm gonna raise taxes". it's absolutely not ok for a judge to say that they will decide future cases on something else besides the law and the facts. the decisions of the judge on the ruling is therefore being influenced by politics rather than what is just. plus there's the obvious fact that judges aren't politicians. judges are judges. campaign contributions influence judicial decisions - and this is an extremely extremely bad precedent to set. politicians can be very unpopular and this can lead to people losing faith in the political process (as many americans have in recent years). what do you think will happen when judges inevitably morph into just another kind of politician?[/QUOTE] Supreme Court Justices are appointed. No politics there. Nope, none at all.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;51144151]Supreme Court Justices are appointed. No politics there. Nope, none at all.[/QUOTE] remove the ability of the president to appoint supreme court justices and put in a commission whose job it is is to sift through candidates who have to take an exam first and shit boom, youre done

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51144241]remove the ability of the president to appoint supreme court justices and put in a commission whose job it is is to sift through candidates who have to take an exam first and shit boom, youre done[/QUOTE] That defies checks and balances.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51144241]remove the ability of the president to appoint supreme court justices and put in a commission whose job it is is to sift through candidates who have to take an exam first and shit boom, youre done[/QUOTE] Oh, you mean like how Congress interviews and approves each appointment and can easily shoot down each selection the president makes? Yeah it's already a thing :v:

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51144241]remove the ability of the president to appoint supreme court justices and put in a commission whose job it is is to sift through candidates who have to take an exam first and shit boom, youre done[/QUOTE] Then who gets on the commission At some point politics gets involved since the system involves humans