i couldn’t find much under fija.org on peremptory challenge. i will keep looking. i do know that the Fully Informed Jury Act does still allow peremptory challenge but does address other aspects of disqualifications.

Libertarian Party Platform
Safeguards for the Criminally Accused
The judicial system must be reformed to allow criminal defendants and civil parties to a court action a reasonable number of peremptory challenges to proposed judges, similar to their right under the present system to challenge a proposed juror.

I still haven’t heard any sort of compelling reason to keep them that can outweigh the criticisms. A check on judges would be a miniscule benefit, and there are already other mechanisms for that. Is there anything else?

That’s a pretty weak case for maintain peremptory challenges.

And sure, the aggrieved party can appeal for harm done. But why should we draw out something like that? I’m not advocating swift justice but I am saying that going through a whole case and then having to appeal on those grounds just seems like a waste. For someone who is already missing worktime and wants to get back, they aren’t going to want to appeal.

I still think going from three peremtory challenges to one is the best way to fix the problem rather than getting rid of the all together.

Isn’t that why there’s an inherent check (the appeals process), which guards against unfair or biased judges? Why does the U.S. judicial system need superfluous, and arguably arcane, protectionist measures that are open to possible abuse and institutionalized discrimination?

From a realistic standpoint, how often are judges unwilling to consider “for cause” challenges? And if they decline, can’t the aggrieved party appeal for for harm done due to judicial bias (as stated above)?