Last login: Monday, May 3, 2010
I appreciate the way this article presents the issues surrounding the bettercourtsnow.com judicial endorsements for this June's Primary. I'm disappointed, however, in the negative slant this report gives those that bettercourtsnow.com endorses - as if they were somehow biased or representing some hidden political or religious agenda, and hence unqualified. Every judge brings their own background, experiences, beliefs, and understanding of the law to cases that they must rule on. Good judges will judge based upon the law itself, and the merits of the case itself, and not let other factors drive decisions. It's been obvious for far too long that judges from the local level to the US Supreme Court have chosen to further their personal beliefs by embedding them into their decisions, allowing midguided societal engineering and "rights" creation to occur without accountability. Even the statement by retired Judge Howitt referring to the fictional consitutional "separation of church and state" illustrates how far things have drifted, and how predisposed many can be to reject foundational principles that our nation and its laws were built upon for the common good. The bottom line is that judges, as well as legislative and executive positions, should not be beyond the reach of the electorate, particularly when they have inserted their personal value system into their decisions. The fact that the vast majority of sitting judges were appointed (and previously vetted) by politicians with political agendas, and then virtually "in office" without challenge for the rest of their career, shows how quickly these positions can become out of touch and unaccountable. I think bettercourtsnow.com is a serious step to restore judicial decisions to its proper place - decisions based upon law and not personal social beliefs.
May 3, 2010 at 12:06 p.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )
© 2016 KPBS Public Broadcasting