Should All US Judges be recalled?
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.
979339
Judges were given the right to overturn laws by the United States Constitution, which was ratified by the states, so the people have essentially agreed to give judges the right. They could theoretically agree later to remove that right.
990912
I work closely with the Courts and Judges are always moaning about the sentences they are allowed give. By law, if someone pleads guilty they have to have a 1/3 reduction on their sentence. So it really is not the Judges fault but the law and Human Rights activists (especially the one in No. 10). Also, even if the offender has loads of previous convictions, they are only allowed to sentence according to the maximum penalty of the current offence. e.g. if someone has been convicted for GBH loads of times and plea bargain for abh, their sentence will be much lower as the maximum penalty is much less.\nAlso, in reponse to the person saying that people don't turn up for Community Service, if they do not turn up and do not have an acceptable reason (e.g. doctors note) then they will be breached and returned to the courts. The same goes for Probation. If you don't turn up you WILL go back to the Courts. And the reason the Government are bringing in all this legislation is because our prison a seriously overvrowded. I am not saying i agree with what they are doing because I really am not, but seomtimes prison is not the best place for these people. Prison is not called "The Criminals University" for nothing!
1002097
Some people might say its because judges are incorrectly interpreting the law or that they place too much emphasis on the fact thats some please guilty therefore making the whole process quicker (and cheaper).\nSome people may say that certain judges have certain tendencies and look after their own.\nIts wrong whatever it is. That baby rape thing made me sick for days. one hour with me in a soundproof cell. I would happily dispense some justice.
1046848
Judgment is imposed. However, He can in turn sue the others for their share of the damages......good grief Judge Judy
899475
Judges shouldn't be rewarded seats via their political contributions!\n\nJudgeships should rewarded by their merit, qualifications, and their competence.
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.
926210
I am American but it is very naive to think they didn't have a major role in this...The puppet regime had repeatedly changed judges because judges were being to lenient to the defense.
706938
I used to be all for it until I started playing yahoo answers.  I don't think it is possible for Americans to be jurors without preconceived notions. Most of the posters in this sight could not have been a juror in the OJ case. They claimed they watched every minute, but didn't care that every piece of evidence was not credible according to the leading forensic scientist in the world.
1130898
Great question. Remember the judge that gave the guy probation after raping a 9 yr old girl saying he was of small stature and would not survive in prison. I think the judges in this country are not following the law. They are following their own value system. A good example is the 9th circuit court of appeals.
751936
But for that power being exercised by the courts, we would not have known the foul play in the AP case of pardon. Our Constitution has envisaged a system of checks and balances. Judicial Review is a must for review all the administrative actions of the President and the Governors. There must be a system to check and control even the Judges of the SC and High Courts.
558961
Yes I agree to the empowering of a Federal Judge and I only say this is just because he is the president he still has to obey the laws just like a regular citizen......Then again I would say no about the recording of all communications because recordings can be altered....but having a judge there and signing something now that just leaves what ever happens to a single judge that was there...and can be accountable....recordings don't really do nothing in a trial...
961523
Well, the problem is -- until these people have actually been charged with and convicted of some crime, she can't just remove them, absent a supermajority vote of the House.\n\nImproper conduct for a judge may be nothing more than a violation of a judicial ethical rule, and could be something as simple as allowing the appearance of impropriety. It can happen where the judge has never broken the law or even never actually done anything unethical -- just the appearance is enough to remove the judge sometimes. But just that appearance is not grounds for forcibly removing an elected official from office. They need to actually have done done something illegal, generally at felony level.\n\nAs far as the guy who had cash in his freezer, that's suspicious but not illegal.
235005
hahaha can I send the judge over too?
616328
No - most states do not allow for the recall of a governor; Indiana (and Ohio, I don't know what the earlier poster was talking about) do not allow for recall.
710496
Just vote against anyone who is currently a judge.
711628
A president that has broken the law most certainly should stand before a judge and be pronounced guilty.  If this question is aimed at George W Bush, however, I would challenge anyone to provide the domestic or international law he is guilty of breaking