Their are new plans on how judges should be "Elected" to the supreme court. Now, we can argue the merits of one system over another and while the Ron Ramsey plan (supported by the Governor) is better then the old way (supported by Naifeh and the trial lawyers) I still wonder how people can support any thing but sending it back to the people to pick who they want from an open field of candidates.
In my mind, the yes/no retention vote is an abomination.
It may have been judged "legal" but I doubt that that system is any thing close to what out states founding fathers had in mind when they said “The judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state,”
I saw nothing in there about how candidates must get approval first from the trial lawyers union, then the speakers of the house and senate, then the governor picks one of three offered to him on the first approved ballot or one of three from another slate, then the people can say yes or no.
The constitution was written by normal people for normal people. That part looks pretty cut and dry. I think most normal people could pretty easily figure it out if they chose to read it. Why do people constantly try to read thing into the constitution that are not there.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Here are the rules for comments. Know them. Live them. http://lastcar.blogspot.com/2011/04/rules-for-comments.html?m=1