Judicial Retention 2014

[Shadowrider]

It's actually pretty easy Shadowrider.

Go to www.oscn.net. Once there, you are 3 clicks away from every high court case back to 1890. The decisions are indexed by year and the full text is included for most. The full text shows how each justice voted. (click on Legal Research, then Oklahoma Cases, then pick your court and click Expand.

The "hard" part is knowing which cases are important to you or reflect your values/beliefs. I don't think anyone can make that easier for anyone…that's a personal decision.

Yea I know about that and that's my whole point. Nobody is going to do the work of pulling it out of that mountain of data.
I'm just thinking some sort of a grading or weighting system is much more feasible.

Like:

Ratio of reduced charge plea deals accepted 99:118
A numeric ranking of years sentenced for incarceration something like 1110 years out of a possible 5200
Judgement awards, etc., etc.

A grading system of sorts. Should be doable and would make us all better informed as long as it's impartial and accurate.

 

[tulsamal]

1) Judges shouldn't be on the ballot in the first place. There's the problem. If there is a bad judge, you put a removal process into motion. Their decisions are going to be unpopular many times but those decisions are supposed to be based on the law and not whether they can please the electorate.

2) I'm supposed to be against some judge because he performed the first gay wedding? In accordance with the law... that's what you are supposed to do... follow the law. Wouldn't he actually be one of those dreaded "activist judges" if he tried to oppose the law and somehow twist the process out as long as possible?

I'm a libertarian from top to bottom. I suspect many gun people are. And my libertarian views extend to all things.... it is none of my business if one man wants to marry another man. Why should it matter to me? More power to them.

 

[dennishoddy]

1) Judges shouldn't be on the ballot in the first place. There's the problem. If there is a bad judge, you put a removal process into motion. Their decisions are going to be unpopular many times but those decisions are supposed to be based on the law and not whether they can please the electorate.

2) I'm supposed to be against some judge because he performed the first gay wedding? In accordance with the law... that's what you are supposed to do... follow the law. Wouldn't he actually be one of those dreaded "activist judges" if he tried to oppose the law and somehow twist the process out as long as possible?

I'm a libertarian from top to bottom. I suspect many gun people are. And my libertarian views extend to all things.... it is none of my business if one man wants to marry another man. Why should it matter to me? More power to them.

The problem is that there is almost no way to see how a judge rules to determine if a voter agrees or disagrees.

The voter is assumed to be dumb and blindly checkmark the keep or not keep box.

Hence the reason I always check NO.

Its the process that ticks me off, not the person.

 

[Erick]

1) Judges shouldn't be on the ballot in the first place. There's the problem. If there is a bad judge, you put a removal process into motion. Their decisions are going to be unpopular many times but those decisions are supposed to be based on the law and not whether they can please the electorate.

2) I'm supposed to be against some judge because he performed the first gay wedding? In accordance with the law... that's what you are supposed to do... follow the law. Wouldn't he actually be one of those dreaded "activist judges" if he tried to oppose the law and somehow twist the process out as long as possible?

I'm a libertarian from top to bottom. I suspect many gun people are. And my libertarian views extend to all things.... it is none of my business if one man wants to marry another man. Why should it matter to me? More power to them.

The only reason it is law is because activist judges (like her) struck down the bill that was passed by the people.

 

[Coded-Dude]

Judges are supposed to strike down laws that are unconstitutional, oppressive, prejudiced, etc.

Otherwise we could pass all kinds of crazy laws. "It's legal to murder every other Wednesday, as long as a blunt object is used and the person really deserved it"

 

[POPIG]

I have always voted against all judges and ask everyone that i know and have never found one person that has every voted for one but they always win
Seems rigged.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

I too always vote to remove them from office. They usually end up getting being in office for years because too many people just vote to retain them.