Amendment 40 - Judged and Found Lacking

This is another of those amendments that seem better than they are. What could be better for the state than mixing up the Judicial branch every few years, throwing the experienced old farts off the bench in favor of some young firebrand? What could be wrong with being able to get rid of an ineffective judge every few years without all the trouble of impeachment? What would be wrong with the People holding the judges accountable more often?

Two words: Judicial impartiality. Elected judges are beholden to political parties and to campaigning, things I really don't want arbiters of the law doing, particularly in today's ideologically-charged environment. We have a more than adequate system of initially screening judges. The Governor can't just pick someone, a commission has to approve the nominees then after two years the judge has to stand election for retention. They are required to retire at age 72.

This amendment builds in a "loading" of the court every ten years, as the Governor then can appoint a supermajority. There goes that judicial impartiality - the judges are then beholden to the Governor and his ideology. It also eliminates experience, something this lefty approves of. Judges tend to move to the left as they mature on the bench, a nice little trend considering the current makeup of the U. S. Supreme Court. And finally, every two years we have the choice to retain or dismiss a judge or justice. Should we exercise this choice, good. Should we keep a bad judge, it's the people's fault.

Amendment 40 is another bad idea. Vote against it and vote against bad justices, let's not limit ourselves to re-selecting them constantly.