How Should Judges Be Appointed? When making this decision, a judge must be aware of the huge impact the duration of a sentencing can have on an individual as this is a life changing experience for not only the criminal but their family too. For this to happen, it can be argued that the judge needs to be able to relate to the person and truly understand the implications. Not all criminals after all truly bad and they vary in the extremity.
Should they be Elected or Appointed? Some states have recently considered proposals Should judges be appointed essay would abolish the election of State judges and replace it with a system of appointed judges who would face periodic retention elections.
While supporters of this plan argue that retention elections will keep judges accountable to the voters, it is irrefutable that this plan will give judges a level of insulation from the public they have never before experienced and make them more unaccountable than ever before.
The folly of this proposal is made clear both by history as well as the lessons of other States that have adopted such a plan. From a historical perspective, the Founders of our country held succinct opinions on this issue. For example, two centuries ago when the colonists declared themselves independent from Great Britain and had opportunity to create their own governments, they promptly incorporated into America new and important judicial principles — of which the Massachusetts Constitution was typical in declaring: All power residing originally in the people and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government vested with authority — whether Legislative, Executive, or Judicial — are their substitutes and agents and are at all times accountable to them.
Although federal judges were appointed and did not face election, the Founders made certain that federal judges would be easily removable from office through impeachment, a procedure that today is widely misunderstood and rarely used. While the current belief is that a judge may be removed only for the commission of a criminal offense or the violation of a statutory law,  it was not this way at the beginning.
And what did the Framers believe were impeachable offenses? The offences to which the power of impeachment has been and is ordinarily applied. Judges given increased levels of protection from the public feel freer to advance personal agendas, often manifesting the view expressed by Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo who declared that: I take judge-made law as one of the existing realities of life.
We elect our legislators to make our laws, and those states that elect judges elect them to apply those laws. If these states reject a system of accountable judges, they undoubtedly will face the same arrogance now so evident on the federal level — as when Supreme Court Chief-Justice Charles Evans Hughes declared: We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.
In fact, why would anyone even propose a system to give additional insulation to judges? Yet, as Thomas Jefferson wisely observed: It should be remembered as an axiom of eternal truth in politics that whatever power in any government is independent is absolute also.
Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. As Jefferson had warned: Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.
Another benefit of the direct elections of judges is the competition that occurs between candidates. In contested races, judicial candidates make public the beliefs of their opponents, thus allowing citizens the opportunity to make informed decisions about those whom they want to sit on the bench.
On the other hand, if an individual is appointed rather than elected, his personal beliefs might remain unknown to the public until they manifest themselves in harmful judicial decisions.
Furthermore, these appointed judges would have at least four uninterrupted, unrestrained years before they would face voters for the first time in a retention election — and even at that time, there would be no opponent to remind voters of egregious decisions.
Those proposing retention elections are not improving State government. Instead, they are violating one of its most sacred principles: The exemption of the judges from that [from election] is quite dangerous enough.
I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them [the people] not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it [control] from them, but to inform their discretion by education.
Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the legislative or judiciary department, I would say it is better to leave them out of the legislative. The execution of the laws is more important than the making of them. For example, Noah Webster, himself a judge and the man responsible for Article 1, Section 8, 8 of the U.
This is particularly true with regard to men who constitute tribunals of justice — the main bulwark of our rights. Recall that the Democrat candidate was lagging far behind his Republican opponent in the polls; the Democrats convinced the unelected judges to place a more viable candidate on the ballot — in violation of the State law — and Democrats therefore won a U.
Senate seat they were destined to lose. And who can forget the appointed Florida Supreme Court in the presidential election?
Judges facing regular elections would not have rendered decisions that ignored such clear legislative language not to mention basic math or the common meaning of words.
Elected judges know that if they make such agenda-driven decisions, they will face a plethora of opponents in their next race who will remind voters of their demonstrated contempt for State law. Arrogant, elitist proposals that judges should be protected from citizens in this day of rampant judicial political agendas is unthinkable in our free society.Although federal judges were appointed and did not face election, the Founders made certain that federal judges would be easily removable from office through impeachment, a procedure that today is widely misunderstood and rarely used.
Should Judges Be Elected or Appointed?
The popular election of judges opens up the judicial branch to the same partisan and commercial pressures that .
“That judges should be separate from politics, that judges should be doing something other than voting with public opinion or voting because of partisanship—that core idea of judicial independence animates the story all the way through,” he says. “It was a real surprise to me.
and write an essay answering the following questions:How well does the racial and gender composition of the judiciary reflect the demographics of the state's population?Should judges be elected or appointed?
The Supreme Court Essay example. created the Supreme Court, but not until was it configured. The way it was originally set up was with one Chief Justice and five associate judges, with all six members being appointed for life.
“That judges should be separate from politics, that judges should be doing something other than voting with public opinion or voting because of partisanship—that core idea of judicial independence animates the story all the way through,” he .