This piece in the Kentucky Lantern is a head scratcher:

One of the best reasons for nonpartisan judge elections? KY law requires it.

A recent column said nonpartisan judicial elections present a problem for voters, namely, “How can voters know how judges may rule on the cases that come before them?”

The key word in that sentence is “may.” Judges should not commit to ruling one way or the other, but to decide cases based on the law and the facts. Voters must remember that judicial elections are not like elections for legislative or executive offices, in which candidates make pledges to get support. Judges must keep an open mind and avoid obligations beyond their duty to follow the law and the facts.

Why have nonpartisan judicial elections? The simple answer is that the Kentucky Constitution requires it and has for more than 50 years.

A deeper dive into the role of the judiciary in our system of government also suggests why, if we are to select judges by popular election, we should do so in nonpartisan elections.

The judicial determination of what the law is should not depend on what is most popular. 

Somehow, the pundits here have not been paying attention to the real world.

Judges are partisan, based on their political affiliation. Just look at the U.S. Supreme Court, which is now 6-3 Republican. Before this iteration of the court we had things like:

A woman’s right to choose, which had been in existence for decades after the Roe v. Wade ruling. Once Republicans got the majority, Roe v. Wade was overturned, even though it had been precedent for most of my lifetime. According to NPR:

In a historic and far-reaching decision, the U.S. Supreme Court officially reversed Roe v. Wade on Friday, declaring that the constitutional right to abortion, upheld for nearly a half century, no longer exists.

Writing for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the 1973 Roe ruling and repeated subsequent high court decisions reaffirming Roe “must be overruled” because they were “egregiously wrong,” the arguments “exceptionally weak” and so “damaging” that they amounted to “an abuse of judicial authority.”

Voting rights were established since the 1960s, but this Supreme Court, following the lead of the pedophile currently in the White House has done the following, according to the League of Women Voters:

If you’re interested in voting rights and representative democracy, you’ve likely heard about the US Supreme Court case Louisiana v. Callais. With a devastating, anti-voter decision in April 2026, Callais is likely to become the most consequential Supreme Court case in over a decade. 

On April 29, the Court issued its opinion in Callais. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which prohibits any voting rule or procedure that discriminates on the basis of race, color, or language minority status, to the point of inoperability. This sends a clear message to the nation: racial discrimination in redistricting is acceptable when done under the guise of partisan gerrymandering. The ruling has greenlit the destruction of voters of color’s main tool for challenging racially discriminatory voting practices. This has led to a frenzied redrawing of congressional voting district maps.

The rights of immigrants has been undermined by this MAGA influenced Supreme Court. NBC News explains what happened in June:

These are all actions taken by a Republican influenced court. To defend “nonpartisan” elections for judges is simply naive.

When I go into a voting booth, I want to know what party a judge is registered with. If I ever go to a debate among judicial candidates, my first, second, third and fourth questions would be, “What political party are you registered with.”

If the answer is “I’m an independent,” my follow up question is “Whom did you vote for in the last presidential election.” If I know that, I know how the judge is going to rule.

Nonpartisan elections are disingenuous.

Meanwhile, let’s switch to a pundit who is consistently wrong, who is oblivious to reality and who is considered one of the most influential columnists in the world: David Brooks.

He said this in a recent PBS Newshour:

“Jon Ossoff, my advice to him is, if you start calling your political opponents Nazis, maybe it’s time to shut up. That’s just not what we do here in this country.”

First of all, if Brooks doesn’t see that there is definitely a Nazi element to in the current administration, he should at least look it up. Even Wikipedia notes the streak of fascism in the current White House:

There has been significant academic and political debate about whether Donald Trump, the 45th and 47th president of the United States, can be considered a fascist according to consensus definitions of the term or because of expressed attitudes some critics perceive as sympathetic to the extreme right. Such critiques arose especially in response to his 2016 and 2024 presidential campaign and during his second term as president.^[a] A number of prominent scholars, former officials, and critics have drawn comparisons between him and fascist leaders with respect to authoritarian actions and rhetoric,^[b] while others have rejected the label.

Trump has supported political violence against opponents; many academics cited Trump’s involvement in the January 6 U.S. Capitol attack as an example of fascism. Trump has been accused of racism and xenophobia with respect to his rhetoric about illegal immigrants and his policies of mass deportation and family separation. Trump’s base, referred to as the MAGA movement, is sometimes analyzed as a cult of personality. Especially during his second term, several experts of fascism have characterized Trump and his allies’ rhetoric and style of governance as authoritarian and have compared them to previous fascist leaders’. In contrast, some scholars have described Trump variously as an authoritarian populist, a far-right populist, a nationalist, or of a different ideology.^[2][3]

And, technically, David Brooks is an immigrant. Although he is an American citizen, he was born in Toronto. So when he says, “That’s just not what we do here in this country,” it’s proof he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, since he never criticizes the right for their orgasmic fascinations with “communists” or “socialists” or “femi-nazis.”

Judging by these “pundit” declarations, I realize I should have been a columnist instead of an editor. These guys get paid a ton of money to be completely wrong.