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.
Should judges be elected?
Judges have to decide complex legal questions dispassionately. It is their job to determine what the law says, not what anyone – including judges – might want it to say. At the same time, judges often seem to have a decisive say in determining important matters of public policy.
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.
Widespread riots and disorder in England
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.
Clown constabulary?
The man in charge of public prosecutions in Britain moved into threatening mode, saying 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. Their activism means judges rule 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 realise 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.
