Why It is Important to Elect Non-Partisan Judges (Philosophical Questions)

We see in our society a growing partisanship, and that has become a concern for a large percentage of people. While it may not trouble the leadership of either party, it has a real impact on those caught between competing narratives—and on the people who create those narratives. Such narratives often lead to poor decisions and misguided choices. As we move forward, it is important to elect non-partisan judges and officials who can serve in positions of authority with fairness and integrity.

Let me share a hypothetical and philosophical story for learning purposes. A clan-like network, made up of homogeneous members, began to feel entitled to the outcomes of certain institutions because of their close associations with officers inside them. Most of these officers were good people serving their communities, but within tightly knit circles, they started shielding friends from wrongdoing. At times, they misused the law to excuse poor behavior, tainted investigations, and undermined the community for the benefit of their friend network (...dubbed The Clan).

Now imagine witnesses, whistleblowers, and victims being targeted simply for speaking out. No safeguards existed to stop these secretive lists, fostered by partisan decision-making. False complaints were filed, human rights violations occurred, and victims—whether survivors of exploitation, minorities, intellectuals, sexual assault, or even officials—were ignored. The more victims came forward, the more justice itself became warped to protect their network and their beliefs.

Gross negligence and partisan bias carry enormous risks. It provides the wiggle room that poor actors need to engage in misbehavior. They erode trust, embolden crime, and allow misconduct to be celebrated openly. They are also unfair—to the many good officers and officials who faithfully serve, to the public who rely on impartial judges, and to future generations who will inherit the mess created by partisan governance. We should all be on the same side working for the greater cause together.

Too often, people vote and rule within narrow parameters, creating “lots of unfairness but not a whole lot of solutions.” Reducing partisanship means holding officials accountable when they use their positions to push extreme beliefs, reversing the damage done by those who have dehumanized others, and avoiding the election of candidates motivated purely by self-glorification or self-benefit. We should not vet leaders from the top down but from the bottom up. Political parties should serve the people—not the other way around.

At present there are no checks and balances in some systems and the respect for the purpose of law weak.

There are responsibilities that outweigh partisanship. Freedoms of speech and religion, human rights, and civil rights do not belong to any political party. They must not be jeopardized by judges or officials who hold extreme partisan views. When backstops fail and victims are ignored, society itself risks collapse. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but the day after as poor decision making undermines the pillars that have existed since the beginning.

It sounds grim, but we can learn from stories like this. They remind us how society should be run: in the best interest of the people. We can also change and choose a different future path....but that might require a fresh way of looking at things.

A Few Philosophical Questions

1. What kind of leadership do we need, and how might partisanship limit their abilities?

2. What checks and balances should exist when partisan judges or officials undermine our social contracts and rights?

3. Should hate crimes be defined by perpetrators or by victims? Who would better understand their nature—scientists or partisans?

4. If we fail to find mechanisms to remove partisan judges who protect crimes and if we cannot limit partisanship in governance, what might that mean for our future?

*This is a hypothetical, philosophical, theoretical learning thought experiment so take with a grain of salt. It is ok to disagree or propose a different set of solutions.