Politics has no place on judicial bench.

That is why folks on the far right are so wrong to lambaste “unelected judges” for ruling as they do, particularly when their rulings go against the right wing’s tightly held agenda.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/unelected-judges

Paul Burka makes an important point in his blog about Sen. Ted Cruz’s criticism of a federal judge’s ruling that threw out Texas’s ban on gay marriage as being unconstitutional. Cruz used the right wing canard about unelected judges being accountable to no one.

That’s the way the U.S. Constitution was written by the founders. It’s strange to hear so-called “strict constructionists” argue against that very provision. Voters elect presidents, who then have the power to appoint judges to the federal bench. If you dislike the philosophies of the judges, then voters’ only option is to elect presidents who will appoint judges more to your liking.

As a counterpoint to the federal system, look at how many states select their judges. Texas’s system, I should add, is no great shakes. We elect our judges on partisan ballots; they run under political parties’ banners. Do you think their decisions are influenced by partisan pressure? In Texas, judges are every bit the politician that define county commissioners, legislators and the governor.

I rather prefer the federal model in which presidents appoint judges, who then are tasked with interpreting the U.S. Constitution. They get it right and they get it wrong. If they make the correct decisions, then so much the better. If they go the wrong way, well, we have Congress and the president to work together to fix the law.

My strong preference — to the extent that it is possible — to keep politics off the federal bench.