Concerning the Composition of the Judiciary
“Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.
“The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.”
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78
“The members of the legislature will rarely be chosen with a view to those qualifications which fit men for the stations of judges; and as, on this account, there will be great reason to apprehend all the ill consequences of defective information, so, on account of the natural propensity of such bodies to party divisions, there will be no less reason to fear that the pestilential breath of faction may poison the fountains of justice. The habit of being continually marshalled on opposite sides will be too apt to stifle the voice both of law and of equity.”
…
“These considerations teach us to applaud the wisdom of those States who have committed the judicial power, in the last resort, not to a part of the legislature, but to distinct and independent bodies of men.”
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 81
The judiciary is intended to remain above the politics of the moment. Their purpose is to interpret the written law, not enforce a particular ideology. unfortunately, conservatives believe otherwise. The direct election empowers and encourages partisanship in the judiciary. In the 2010 election in Minnesota, three radical conservative activists ran for the state supreme court.
“The separation of church and state, Tingelstad argues, is a myth. Justices should rule from the “Word of God” first, and from sources such as the constitution, statute and case law second.”
They were defeated in a landslide.
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional – it was not a partisan split. I can easily see such a ruling – our own gay marriage ban violates no less than four sections of our state constitution. Section 2 of DOMA is a direct contradiction of the federal Constitution.
Instead of accepting rule of law, conservatives retaliated by waging a massive anti-retention campaign fueled with out-of-state money. This had the dual effect of successfully rejecting Iowa state sovereignty and corrupting the judicial system with political ideology.
The process of non-partisan nomination and bi-partisan confirmation, preferably of candidates approved by the American Bar Association, is the best system for an honest and reliable court system.
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
James Madison, Federalist 47
ZeraLand, USA 