Elections are underway for the Mississippi Supreme Court. Five candidates are competing for a seat in the Central District, some of whom I heard speak at the Neshoba County Fair recently. There’s a similar election taking place in south Mississippi. It’s easy to take it for granted that ordinary people are able to elect judges in our state.
Judges have to decide complex legal questions dispassionately. This sometimes encourages commentators to ask if we should allow ordinary voters to elect judges in the first place. “Do voters know enough to elect Mississippi judges?” ran one headline last week. Given all the complexities and the fact that most voters have only a limited understanding of the law, surely it should be left to experts to decide who is best qualified to sit on the Mississippi Supreme Court? If you want to know why ordinary people in Mississippi ought to retain the power to elect their judges, look across the Atlantic. On a brief visit to my native Britain, I was appalled at what’s been going on. There have been widespread riots in towns and cities across England over the past couple of weeks following the murder of three young girls in Southport at a Taylor Swift dance class. The UK authorities are now alarmed that a sizeable number of Brits are extremely agitated about mass (often illegal) immigration. Tens of thousands of illegal migrants have been allowed to flood into the country on small dinghies from France. 1 in 27 people now living in Britain arrived in the past two years. 4 in 10 foreign-born people in Britain have arrived in the past decade. More ominously, perhaps, millions of Brits seem to have lost confidence in what many see as a “two tier” criminal justice system. There’s a widespread sense that the police and the judiciary in Britain routinely apply different standards to different groups, including Muslims.
When, for example, (non-Muslim) Roma immigrants rioted in the city of Leeds last month, the police seemed to stand back. A mere handful have been charged. Contrast that to the way police this week arrested and charged people for saying obnoxious things online. In Cheshire, the police arrested a woman for an inaccurate social media post. The official in charge of public prosecutions in Britain declared that he has a team of “dedicated police officers scouring social media” to arrest people for posting things that are “insulting” or “abusive”. He even threatened to extradite people to the UK for sharing such material online. Unable to police the streets against violent robbery, the clowns running Britain today are arresting people for being rude online. Having failed to keep illegal immigrants out, they are threatening to import foreigners into the country against their will for what they re-tweet. How did Britain end up in such a sorry state? To a large extent it is a story about the corruption of Britain’s judiciary. Mass immigration has become an explosive issue in Britain because judges have routinely thwarted attempts by successive governments to control it. In 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019 the British people voted overwhelmingly to cut immigration to less than 100,000 a year. This has not happened because judges have systematically prevented elected governments from controlling the country’s borders. British judges only ever seem to rule in favor of those who enter the country illegally being able to remain, ruling on the basis of what they think the law should be, not the laws Parliament has passed. Britain, a once orderly, high-trust society, has become increasingly lawless because judges have routinely failed to apply sentences that ordinary Brits would regard as just. It is so commonplace for violent robbers and rapists to be given community sentences, rather than go to prison, it is seldom even reported anymore. Only last month, it was announced that even violent offenders would be released from prison after serving 40 percent of their sentences. Why are British judges so awful? Because they are unaccountable to the public. In Britain, judges are appointed, not elected. Until 2006, at least the appointments were made by an elected minister, meaning there was at least some degree of democratic oversight. Since 2006, Britain’s judges have been appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission, a body obsessed about diversity, equity and inclusion, rather than justice. Liberty and order in Britain are collapsing as a consequence. Back in Neshoba, it was refreshing to watch wannabe judges having to connect with the people that they wanted to serve. They talked of their record of service. They gave the audience a good sense of their values. Watching the process of judicial elections, I realize it would be impossible for Mississippi, with elected judges, to end up in the absurd situation Britain is now in. Keep it that way. Elect your judges to safeguard your liberties. Bar some very exceptional circumstances, such as when a city descends into dysfunction (Jackson?), elected judges are better than the alternatives. Douglas Carswell is the President and CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. MCPP sponsored this post.
11 comments:
Elected judges all too often pander to the fears and ignorance of the madding crowd. All Article III federal judges are appointed to office. Any Trial attorney knows that only the most professional and competent lawyers are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate.
Surely you jest, Salty. What a coincidence that every time there's a presidential change of party, all the federal US Attorneys are fired and only professional, competent ones replace them. Funny how that works.
When do we vote in Rankin CO?
November 5
Of the last few times I’ve been called to jury duty in Hinds County, and the two I’ve attended, I’ve been subjected to being in the captive audience of a commercial, for Jim Kitchens. It’s almost like being in an episode of “Green Acres”. He strolls in before the polling begins and pontificates on all things Jim Kitchens. I had an uncle with a similar drawl once, but I LIKED him, he was honest.
6:17 obviously hasn’t studied the opinions by some of the federal judges from Texas.
A bit ironic that Mr. Carswell uses the illegal immigrant issue to illustrate the need for elected judges. Apparently, he lacks awareness that in our system on this side of the pond immigrant cases are the jurisdiction of federal court where the judges are . . . appointed!
6:17. That was a joke, right? Or are you just trying to stir up trouble?
There has got to be a better way and our legislature should take a serioius effort to find it. So many of our people have no understanding of the jurisdiction and function of judges whom they vote for simply on name recognition alone. I have talkied to people who do not know the difference between a circuit judge and a justice court judge...and they vote! Competence ought to matter more than it does and voting does not insure that it will.
11:33, You do realize Jim Kitchens hasn't tried a case in 15 years, don't you?
12:14, You do realize that your reading comprehension is poor. I never said anything about trying a case. He will come in and give his stump speech about what a good ole boy of a dirt farming country lawyer he is and ask for your vote for his reelection to the Supreme Court.
Post a Comment