Un billet fort intéressant de Rob Hyndman m'a rappelé la raison pour laquelle nous préférions ne pas élire nos juges... Voici la petite histoire tirée du NY Times qu'il cite pour vous en convaincre:
In the fall of 2004, Terrence O’Donnell, an affable judge with the placid good looks of a small-market news anchor, was running hard to keep his seat on the Ohio Supreme Court. He was also considering two important class-action lawsuits that had been argued many months before. In the weeks before the election, Justice O’Donnell’s campaign accepted thousands of dollars from the political action committees of three companies that were defendants in the suits. Two of the cases dealt with defective cars, and one involved a toxic substance. Weeks after winning his race, Justice O’Donnell joined majorities that handed the three companies significant victories.
Justice O’Donnell’s conduct was unexceptional. In one of the cases, every justice in the 4-to-3 majority had taken money from affiliates of the companies. None of the
dissenters had done so, but they had accepted contributions from lawyers for the
Inspirant! Ne serait-il pas intéressant que tous les juges aient un cellulaire ou, mieux, un Blackberry commandité... ;-)