"SOONER OR LATER," warned Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835, judicial elections "will have dire results". One day, he continued, "it will be perceived that by so diminishing the independence of the magistrates, not only has judicial power been attacked, but the democratic republic itself". His warning was not heeded: most states elect judges to at least some courts. Today's opponents of judicial elections cite two main fears. The first is that judges may rule more favourably to those who contributed to their campaigns. Cognisant of such concerns, in 2015 Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Supreme Court's liberals to uphold a state ban on judges personally soliciting campaign donations. "Judges are not politicians," wrote Mr Roberts, "even when they come to the bench by way of the ballot...A state may assure its people that judges will apply the law without fear or favour—and without having personally asked anyone for money."
展开▼
机译：1835年，亚历克西斯·德·托克维尔（Alexis de Tocqueville）警告说，“声优者或事后”，司法选举“将产生可怕的结果”。他继续说，“有一天，人们会认为，通过如此削弱地方法官的独立性，不仅司法权受到了攻击，民主共和国本身也受到了攻击”。他的警告没有引起注意：大多数州至少选举一些法院的法官。今天反对司法选举的人提出了两个主要的担忧。首先，法官可能会对那些为其竞选活动做出贡献的人做出更有利的裁决。意识到这种担忧，首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨（John Roberts）于2015年加入最高法院的自由派，坚持国家禁止法官亲自募捐竞选捐款的禁令。罗伯茨先生写道：“法官不是政客，即使他们是通过选票来到板凳席上的……一个国家也可以向人民保证，法官将在没有恐惧或偏爱的情况下适用法律，也不会亲自问任何人”为了钱。”
展开▼
