Politician and Judges?
99540
Both can be elected or appointed.
485656
Some do, some don't.  Judges are in most states elected or at least selected by elected officals, so they are on the bench due to the majority support of their stance, be it "by the book" or "alternative" punishments.  It all depends on who you draw.  All you can do is try to highlight a mistake and show remorse that you will never do it again, learned your lesson, will go save orphans from a burning building and commit 27 other selfless acts, etc.
40225
I must commend you on one of the most thoughtful (and complex) questions I have had the pleasure to read--and try to understand--since I began at Yahoo! Answers.\n\nI see the logic of the argument you are offering.  It definitely gets into the whole "separation of powers" issue.  What IS Congress' role in confiming members of the judiciary?\n\nUnfortunately, there is always going to be a political element in presidential appointments.  And with the legislative arm charged with signing off on most of those appointments, the political factor increases dramatically.\n\nIn this case, it appears many people, in either party, believe the judges appointed by President Bush could or would have a particular agenda--whether or not that was actually the truth.  It certainly wasn't spelled out by the president, but supporters and detractors both strongly felt it was certainly implied.\n\nDoes this judge (Alito) or have any judges nominated by Bush or any other president truly have or had predetermined opinions on issues the court may address?  The altruist in me says, "No!  These judges have sworn to apply the law, and nothing but the law, to the decisions they hand down".  But the politician in me says, "Bush and his supporters have been salivating for years to stack the court with conservatives to challenge Roe v. Wade.  How can he not try and make that happen?"\n\nSo where does this leave Congress?  Forced to judge a judge by determining, right or wrong, if they will in fact use only the law in arriving in their rulings.  That they either have no personal stake in a decision or wouldn't allow it to influence them.  It leads to some strange and unusual exchanges between those questioning and answering.\n\nAnd when you factor in the partisanship inherent in any legislative process, it can and has gotten downright ugly.  Hearings for Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas immediately come to mind; I know there are many others.\n\nIn short, this is an imperfect system that must place an imperfect individual (in that they cannot be TRULY impartial) into a position that affects our nations' history.  Frankly, I'm surprised it's held up as well as it has over the years.\n\nI hope I've fairly addressed your question.  Thanks again for making me put on my thinking cap.  I need that every once in a while.
523800
nope, its legislators who make law... judges interpret them
148265
There are a total on nine sitting judges.
154417
Considering that judges are either elected or appointed by elected officials, I do not see how, even if they were all recalled, they could possibly all be replaced by judges who think the "right" way;  since people in states, counties, districts, etc., all over the US, have different criteria in voting for one person or another.  In order for the wishes of those who attended this rally/meeting to be observed in the appointing of judges, democracy would have to be abolished, and a totalitarian state set up in its place.\n\nSince I am against totalitarian states, I would have to say no, all US judges should not be recalled.
204582
the system has flaws and you just have to cross your fingers i guess, with your question I think it depends on the judge some are more moral than others you cant prejudge them though im sure theres some really tough ass good judges AND some corrupt ones too.
387497
Judicial legislative and executive. the judicial makes law. the executive enforce laws and the legislative is checks and balances.
121434
Legislative, Executive, and Judicial
594823
Prime Minister and a Parliament.
270575
Judges typically are there to ensure that all rules of the court are followed – most importantly, the Rules of Evidence.  Judges can rule on whether certain evidences are admissible (to be presented to the jury), as well as ruling on any motions either side would make.  Judges would also answer any questions from the jurors when they are deliberating.  If a defendant chooses to have a “bench” trial, the judge also serves as the jury (fact finder) as well.  The judge would also give sentences to convicted defendants according to the rules.
838942
The judge will decide.\n\nCoach
412115
Politicians and televangelists.
120069
Executive, Legislative, Judicial
725371
They are both guilty. As the saying goes, come to court w/ clean hands or the court will leave you as is. So, if I'm the judge, I'll refuse to decide the case. Instead I'll have them both arrested.
1174877
Because there are many cases that politicians would like to influence to their own favor in addition to cases against the government that have to be handled by an independent judiciary for there to be any chance of faireness.
1115548
In common law countries, such as the United States, and those with roots in the British commonwealth, judges have a number of powers which do not exist, or are not acknowledged to exist, in civil law legal systems, which collectively make the judiciary a more powerful political force than in civil law countries.\n\nsee more...\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge#Authority_of_Judges