Not sure if I have a way to make it better. I think that campaigning for public votes is a bad idea.

I'm always impressed with judges who can make a call that goes against their personal beliefs because of how they interpret the law. I also hope that judges can weigh their beliefs into their interpretation. That's why it is an interpretation. But where is the accountability? Can their peers hold that?

I know it drives me and plenty of other people
crazy when judges with apparently biased agendas reverse a ruling that seems to be common sense. Being in California, this seems to happen a lot. And the new ruling is usually overturned itself. This seems like a waste of time and resources. However, I am glad that someone is willing to step in and question what is often considered common sense. Without a "Devil's Advocate," how can we truly be sure that it is the right thing to do? I may disagree and it can be abused, but putting doubts to rest is helpful. And there is always a price to pay.

And when the next step is the Supreme Court, is that too short of a journey to ensure that we're getting it right?

Anyway, I can't think of any ways to improve on what is a pretty good, albeit imperfect system. I don't think a perfect system is attainable because humans are too imperfect. We just try to get as close to the limit as possible.

Fer"I'm forming a Kakistocracy, the line starts down the hall"rick