Four Jews and five Catholics are going to anoint a Mormon?! 
California has the same system, sort of. After appointment by the Governor, the justices are subjected to a retention vote. Then, if “confirmed” by the vote, they come up for vote again every 12 years. In 1986, Republicans mounted an effort to remove three liberal justices from the Supreme Court, ostensibly in response to their practice of overturning death penalty sentences. The three were ousted by failing their retention vote. In reality, of course, the reason for the effort was the fact that the justices were seen as impeding any effort by conservative forces to implement conservative legislative and administrative policies. So, in sum, they were ousted for being “liberal”, in a state that has prided itself on being “liberal”.
I doubt Florida’s situation is significantly different, except that the justices have not yet had time to prove how liberal they are.
Why is it under threat? How is it under threat?
Ok…they are mounting a campaign within the workings of the system. You obviously don’t like the possible outcome. Fine. How is that a threat to the ‘Florida Supreme Court’s independence’? What’s the threat? That people might vote contrary to your wishes? Or is the title just sensationalist to get folks to come into the thread?
Obviously, this is about using the system to affect a change. Unlike the national Supreme Court, the folks in Florida apparently can take a hand in voting people in or out. This is, again obviously, a political initiative. How is it a threat to the independence of the court though?
If I read the OP right, the retention process was put in place to protect against corruption, not to subject the judiciary to nominal electoral pressures. There is a large school of thought that by placing the judiciary somewhat outside the reach of volatile political impulses, the result is a body of law with stronger roots in reasoned legal argumentation with lesser reliance on electoral pandering.
Using a process designed to protect one aspect of judicial integrity to erode it in a different place threatens the judiciary’s independence.
That it is legal or technically within the letter of the law does nothing to diminish the overall repugnance of misusing one tool to achieve political ends.
It seems there is often a right/left split on that (though I don’t know XT as a poster or have any insight into his/her political bent). The notion that it’s okay/moral/hunky-dory as long as it’s technically legal is mystifying to me. Well, not mystifying, but I would have thought the line of thought would have gone out in fourth grade.
ETA: Actually, I think there is an interesting parallel. The right also makes (false) claims of judicial activism when the courts decide against them. But, the courts use perfectly legal methods that in the rights’ minds is an incorrect use of power. So they’re using a power (incorrectly in the minds of others) to achieve political ends.
The three up for retention in this election were appointed in the late 1990s, they’ve had plenty of time to prove whatever they are; click their links and judge for yourself.
Judicial Elections. For a court of cassation of a state no less. Is not that the worst interference in Judicial Independance that you can ask for?
IIRC, there were some SC justices in the late '70s who were known to be corrupt but couldn’t be removed. The merit-retention vote was introduced to provide the voters a way to get rid of such.
Why isn’t impeachment an option for removing corrupt judges there, as it is in most places?
It is, it is. I don’t know why that was not considered adequate.
Because the legislature can be even more corrupt, maybe?
I don’t think that retention votes are all that bad. I like judicial independence, but life appointments are too long; how many of you would like a vote for/against Scalia, for example?
Likewise, 2 or 4 year terms would make judges/justices too beholden to the electorate and afraid to vote their conscience.
A 12 year term with renewal by voter approval seems to be a nice balance. Further, it’s not a direct election because there is no other candidate out there promising the world. It’s just a yea/nay on the individual.
Interesting that this effort comes up (at the behest of the GOP) at the same time that the (super-majority GOP led) Legislature also put a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot that would lead to them having more control over SC appointments. The GOP in Florida wants to set up a system of philosopher-kings and they aren’t shy about advancing that agenda.
Terrible idea; a much larger number of people would have voted against Warren Burger and William Douglas after Roe v. Wade. No Supreme Court would ever again dare to hear any case that was even remotely controversial. It would absolutely annihilate judicial independence.
When California’s Rose Bird was ousted in one of these elections, a political cartoonist drew a picture of a generic high court justice paying close attention, not to the evidence, but to the applause meter.
The Legislature reflects our views. The courts are the interface between law and reality.
Electing justices is like electing reality.
They’re not political appointees, or at least the appointment process is as apolitical as you can have in a democracy. An independent panel (the Statewide Judicial Nominating Commission) submits three nominees to the Governor, who takes his pick.
Of course, this will no longer be true if the Legislature gets their way on Amendment 5. The process will become almost entirely political with the court system subservient to the Glorious Legislature (hallowed be their name).
[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]
It seems there is often a right/left split on that (though I don’t know XT as a poster or have any insight into his/her political bent). The notion that it’s okay/moral/hunky-dory as long as it’s technically legal is mystifying to me. Well, not mystifying, but I would have thought the line of thought would have gone out in fourth grade.
[/QUOTE]
I’m considered a conservative around here…by the non-conservative posters anyway. Equally mystifying to me is the attitude that it’s wrong/bad/non-hunky-dory to use the rules that exists because, well, you don’t think they should. If the rule is in there then someone is going to use it sometime. Crying about that is militantly unhelpful, and not the way our system works. I thought THAT attitude went out in about the first grade, when crying to the teacher because someone beat you at something by using the rules might actually work, if you shed enough crocodile tears. Our system is set up in such away that there is a self correcting mechanism here…the voters. If the voters in Florida think this is an abuse of the spirit, if not the letter of the law, then they have a perfect opportunity here to correct that bad rule and bring the spirit and letter more into line to prevent future abuse. If not…not. Got to hate that.
I agree, but the sad fact is that Justices and Judges have become political and should answer for their political leanings. We all know that there are 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, and 1 moderate on the Supreme Court.
Why should Elena Kagan or Clarence Thomas have a lifetime on the Court? We know how they will vote on the issues that matter. Why should we be stuck with them until they die?
They are way more powerful that Congressmen and we would be appalled at the idea of life terms for the legislature. But instead of 1/535 of a vote on Obamacare, for example, they have a 1/9 vote. The idea that they are detached, impartial magistrates deciding the law is soooo 1800. 
It’s fascinating that in a post where you decry the predictability of the USSC, you mention a recent case that turned that notion on its head (unless your “1 moderate” was a reference to John Roberts). Also, given the power they have predictability and stability are generally considered positives…
When said judiciary promotes *his *ideology?
The trouble with the modern crop of Republcians, is we’ve had systems in place that assume the people in charge have a molecule of class and decorum. You didn’t need a rule that said, “Don’t shit in the halls” until people started shitting in the halls.
Republicans have been pushing misinformation and nonsense to manipulate their base so long, that some of the people that grew up believing that misinformation are now actually in positions of leadership.
I fail to see the functional difference between electing senators and members of the judiciary. Both have highly specialised roles (one involves primarily proposing and amending legislation, the other applying it). Is it more damaging to the electorate that those scrutinising legislation are more beholden to their approval than those applying it?