Constitutional to Limit Judicial Candidates' Speech?

goofyfish

goofyfish

Analog By Birth, Digital By Design
Valued Senior Member
This case was heard before the US Supreme Court Tuesday.
WASHINGTON, March 26 —
...At issue in an argument before the court was the constitutionality of a Minnesota rule, similar to those in many other states, that bars judicial candidates from taking public positions on issues likely to come before them as judges.

The Minnesota rule that a candidate for the state's Supreme Court challenged in 1998 was actually broader, providing that a judicial candidate "shall not announce his or her views on disputed legal or political issues."

But a federal appeals court, in order to resolve its constitutional concern about the open-ended nature of that restriction, interpreted it as limited to issues likely to come before the candidate in the form of actual cases. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis, then upheld the rule, and two months ago the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted the interpretation as binding. Rules governing the conduct of lawyers and judges are typically adopted by state high courts rather than by legislatures.
Click to expand...
It appears to me a violation of free speech. Although the law may be quite beneficial, it doesn't rise to the emergency, life-and-death level of provoking a riot in a crowded theater.

On the other hand, it has been upheld by 2 federal courts and by the Minnesota Supreme Court, so others see it differently. Perhaps the real solution is to end the election of judges.

Peace.
 
I prefer some type of appoinment.. I base it mostly on a retired Judge that exposed the weakness of our system. But an appointment by whom becomes the real problem as it could lead to a worst situation.

Freedom of speech should be protected in this country, afterall, it is what gives me the right to bash politics...lol
 
I think in Aust (someone corect me if im wrong) apointments for judges is done by OTHER judges to proserve the "separation of powers"
 
This article by Stephen Gillers says that the Minnesota law is unconstitutional, but still recommends some restrictions on what judicial candidates may say. Is it a good compromise?
...it surely does [violate the Constitution]. It also insults the public by implying that voters can't be trusted with information. And besides, it's unworkable.
snip
Candidates should not be allowed to say how they would decide particular cases, but democratic values should free them to give their general views on important legal issues.
Click to expand...
Certainly people would like to know what their judges think so they can be certain to vote in judges who reflect their personal opinions. Unfortunately this can be bad for any minority (minority in terms of a given stand on an issue). Sometimes merely reflecting majority will is not in the best interests of the country (tyranny of the majority).

Peace.
 
Surly judges shouldn't stand for ANYTHING (they are NOT politins). They are there to administer the LAW so they have to be TOTALY OBJECTIVE
 
In a perfect system, surely. Humans are flawed, however, and life-experiences and subtle prejudices will color anyone's interpretation of a given set of circumstances.

Peace.
 
DRUNK??? At 9:20 in the morning???
(and don't gimme that crap about "different time zones.") :D

Peace.
 
I'm in my very own timezone at the moment, and it's all blurry. But I believe it includes pizza some time soon, so that's okay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top