Subject: Re: [EL] more news II 11/1/10
From: Jon Roland
Date: 11/1/2010, 8:31 PM
To: "election-law@mailman.lls.edu" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Reply-to:
"jon.roland@constitution.org"

Unfortunately what we have seen is rejection on other grounds than noncompliance with constitutions. The classic example was the nonretention of Justice Rose Bird in California, because it was perceived that she was "soft on crime" for her death penalty rulings. We see a consistent pattern of voters voting for or against judges and prosecutors depending on whether they promise to be "tough on crime", regardless of what that might mean to due process. We also see the attitude among too many jurors: "Convict 'em all and let God sort 'em out."

We don't get constitutional justice by elections, and we don't get it from appointments. No one can be trusted to select the people who make judicial or other decisions. Not officials and not the people. It is time to try something else.

On 11/01/2010 09:54 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: 
in many states, we do have such a system.  And I see no reason why the people of the state, in whose name the state constitution is created, can't act to remove their servants based on those servants' highly contestable interpretations of that state's constitution.
  


-- Jon

----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society               http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322              Austin, TX 78757
512/299-5001                   jon.roland@constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------