Republican Governor cancels state supreme court election

[The_Animus]

Kemp of Georgia is just going to appoint someone he wants instead. This isn't the first time he has subverted democracy in the state either. He's also intentionally suppressed legitimate voters and appointed himself to oversee an election he was running in.

If this ends up being allowed you can bet Republicans in other states will do the same because they've consistently shown they hate democracy.

On March 5, 2020, two aspiring candidates for Georgia Supreme Court filed suit against the state’s highest election official because the race in which they hoped to compete was taken off the ballot the day before the qualifying period began.

On February 28, 2020, Justice Keith Blackwell announced that he will be retiring from the state supreme court, and therefore will not run for reelection. Blackwell’s announcement stated that he intends to remain on the court until November 18, 2020. The justice was scheduled to stand for reelection on May 19, but his term does not end until the end of December.

Because Blackwell’s announced retirement falls before his term is over in December, Gov. Brian Kemp (R) will appoint Blackwell’s successor. Kemp conveyed that information to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R), who then canceled the election.

https://news.ballotpedia.org/2020/0...retirement-gov-kemp-will-appoint-replacement/

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

If this ends up being allowed you can bet Republicans in other states will do the same because they've consistently shown they hate democracy.

Let's hope so. That would be great!

 

[BobTheCoward]

Rules are rules.

 

[Stacyhs]

Let's hope so. That would be great!

Hey, sir-drinks-a- lot, now that I've found you, are you going to deliver that psychiatrist who specializes in geriatrics you implied would support Biden has dementia? You just disappeared from the Biden for president thread days ago.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Rules are rules.

Having looked at the Constitution, this does seem to be a quirk in the law, but the good news, if there is some, is that the appointee's spot will be up for election in 2022, so they only have to put up with them for 2 years instead of 6.

It would seem to have made more sense that the election should occur and then the winner take over on Jan 1st with the seat remaining empty for a month.

Paragraph IV. Period of service of appointees. An appointee to an elective office shall serve until a successor is duly selected and qualified and until January 1 of the year following the next general election which is more than six months after such person's appointment.

The quirk being the last part which doesn't consider the occurrence of an election occurring prior to the appointment. This might actually be a point of attack that those bringing the case could use though, as it would allow for the undoing of an election by having a losing Justice resign after the election, and prior to the end of their term, and then have the Governor nullify the election by appointment.

 

[Bob001]

Not defending sleazy Repubs here, but it is worth asking if state supreme court justices should be elected at all, instead of being appointed by the governor with the approval of the legislature? Do we want justices -- or any judges -- shaping their decisions to win votes? Imagine what the U.S. courts would look like if Supreme Court justices and other federal judges were elected and subject to re-election every 10 years or so. The South is full of elected judges who impose the death penalty under questionable circumstances because they know it gets votes. Electing judges undermines a basic principle that judges should be, or at least appear to be, above electoral politics.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Not defending sleazy Repubs here, but it is worth asking if state supreme court justices should be elected at all, instead of being appointed by the governor with the approval of the legislature? Do we want justices -- or any judges -- shaping their decisions to win votes? Imagine what the U.S. courts would look like if Supreme Court justices and other federal judges were elected and subject to re-election every 10 years or so. The South is full of elected judges who impose the death penalty under questionable circumstances because they know it gets votes. Electing judges undermines a basic principle that judges should be, or at least appear to be, above electoral politics.

Here Judges are selected by an apolitical body, then passed to the Attorney General, who while a member of the Government, is expected to act apolitically in accepting the selection. It is then passed to Cabinet to approve, but traditionally this happens without objection regardless of the candidate's own politics.

While NZers are far less partisan than Americans anyways, it seems to have worked pretty well as keeping politics out of the Judiciary.

 

[Belz...]

Let's hope so. That would be great!

We you joking, or do you really think that destroying Democracy is good?

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Rules are rules.

Only when they hurt Democrats.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Not defending sleazy Repubs here, but it is worth asking if state supreme court justices should be elected at all, instead of being appointed by the governor with the approval of the legislature? Do we want justices -- or any judges -- shaping their decisions to win votes? Imagine what the U.S. courts would look like if Supreme Court justices and other federal judges were elected and subject to re-election every 10 years or so. The South is full of elected judges who impose the death penalty under questionable circumstances because they know it gets votes. Electing judges undermines a basic principle that judges should be, or at least appear to be, above electoral politics.

Judges should be appointed by random lot from a pool of candidates who have passed the civil service exams to demonstrate technical competency. NO election should influence the administration of justice in any way whatsoever.