Are there people that over see's Judges to make sure their egos stay humble?

Question

I live in Florida, here there is no one keeping watch on the judges, so they basically get away with what they want. Some of them have gotten to where they know they can do anything and there is nothing you can do about it. They definately need a Judecial Review Board or something like that so the judges remember they aren't God's. What's it like in your state? do judges have people watching over them? If not, if there was a petition going around asking for a law that judges be governed, would you sign it? What state? I definately would, AM!!!

I see the only two that has answered, isn't really up on the law. Judges need guidelines, need to know they can't go over those lines, some do anyway and there is NOTHING you can do about it when it happens. It's a fine line between overzealous and corrupt.

Answer 1

In the State of Washington we have a "Commission on Judicial Misconduct". The commission has the power to de-bench a judge.
THAT kinda tends to keep them in line. Check your state legislature page.

Answer 2

For state judges, voters may oversee them, but most state judges are more or less immune from popular influence. Most States elect judges according to the Missouri plan. Under this model, a "bi-partisan" committee reccommends 3 prospective judges to the governor of a state, and then the governor picks his favorite. The people then vote in "retention elections" to decide whether to keep the judges. Empirical data has proven that people know very little about judges and often base their decisions in retention elections on irrelevant matters. Also, because people don't know much about judges, they tend to retain judges because people generally vote incumbent when they lack knowledge on a certain candidate.
Federal Judges, even more than State judges, are guaranteed judicial independence. They are not elected, they receive a lifetime appointment, and cannot be impeached except for "bad behavior"- like a felony. Further their salaries cannot be diminished during their tenure. They are very much immune from outside influence. It is thought that judges should do their job, determining what the law, irrespective of what the people think. Who knows if that's right? However, there are some checks on judges' egos. They depend on the executive branch, a popularly-elected branch, to enforce their rulings. If the executive disagrees with the judiciary's ruling so strongly, he may decide not to enforce it. And it's difficult to see what the judiciary could do about it; the Federal judges have a bunch of overweight federal marshals as their "enforcement"- the Executive has all the military. Indeed, this happened once when Justice Jackson ignored a ruling rendered by the Supreme Court that involved State treatment of the Cherokee Indians(WORCESTER v. STATE OF GA). So, since the Judiciary relies on a popularly elected branch to enforce its rulings- the executive, you could say that there is an indirect check on the judiciary's egos. Another check on judicial ego are appellate courts, which review the decisions of lower courts and decide whether to uphold (agree) with them or reverse them. But, as you might have figured, this doesn't work for the Supreme Court because there is no higher Court to review their decisions/check their egos.

Answer 3

In Australia they seem to be a law unto themselves and accountable to nobody. In fact if anybody tries to criticise them they are accused of interfering with the independence of the judiciary. They are like the sacred cows in India with no perception of the feelings of the people they are supposed to protect. There should be another independent body with the power to get rid of them if they don't reflect the expectations of the ordinary citizen.

Answer 4

Voters are supposed to oversee judges. We voters are too busy with other mundane things in our lives. So... judges let child molester go and on and on.

Answer 5

voters. local and county judges are elected you dont like them then get rid of em