Question

Supreme Court justices are elected for “life” and some states follow the same procedure. How should judges be selected? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the federal appointment process? What are the pros and cons of judges being elected by the people? What are the benefits of the mixture of both selection processes? Doesn’t the process of appointing judges rather than electing them allow judges to do what is right instead of what is popular? Would the outcome of Brown v. Board of Education have been different if the judges were up for election the next year? *Full complete sentences explains clearly*  

Answer 1

a. Judges should be selected on the basis of appointments, not elections. This is because elections of judges often lead to engaging of interest groups, mudslinging and campaigns. The end result of this is that judges are often forced to weigh decisions on a political balance and this may lead them to sacrifice some of their judicial rationale in the process. Appointing of judges, rather than electing them, will remove these problems and even help in safeguarding the neutrality of the judicial bench.

b. The federal appointment process will have the important advantage of safeguarding the neutrality of the judicial bench. It will also eliminate all forms of unwarranted interference in the process. In terms of disadvantages the federal appointment process may lead to political patronage and thus those judges with strong political links may end up getting appointed.

When judges are elected by people political neutrality and fairness will be ensured. There will be no element of political bias and favor. In terms of cons people may not always have the information and knowledge about which judge will be able to serve best and the people may thus end up selecting a judge with a lower level of experience or with sub-optimal skill sets.

c. The benefits of mixture of both the selection process are that the advantages of both the process can be combined and the disadvantages can be eliminated. When both the processes are combined then only the best qualified candidates will be elected and appointed as judges, there will be less concentration in the hands of governor and political patronage will have no bearing on the outcome.

d. Yes, the process of appointing judges rather than electing them allows judges to do what is right instead of what is popular. When judges are appointed then politics is taken out of judging and judges are no longer required to win the popular mandate by doing the popular things. Instead they can focus on those things that are deemed right and correct to further the law of land and make it stronger.

----------------Thankyou----------------------------------------------