In essence, there is just one pro and one con to having appointed judges. The pro is that appointed judges are free of the political process. The con is the same, worded differently. Appointed judges are bad because they are not democratically elected and therefore are not subject to the will of the people.
If you need more points each way, you can split each of these up to some degree, creating “subpoints” that are part of the larger idea. In favor of appointed judges:
- Appointed judges are chosen on merit. Judges or good or bad based on how well they know the law and how to apply the law to court cases. They should be picked by legal experts, not by the voters who have no real basis on which to choose between them.
- They do not have to ask people for money. If judges have to raise election funds, it will seem that they are biased in favor of those who give them money.
- They do not have to think about public opinion when deciding cases. We don’t want judges thinking “what will be the popular decision” when trying to make decisions based on the law.
Against appointed judges:
- Appointed judges are undemocratic. We don’t allow experts to pick presidents and members of Congress so why should we allow them to pick judges.
- They don’t have to listen to the will of the people. Officials in a democratic system should have to follow the will of the people, expressed through elections.
- The appointment process can be corrupt too. What if the “experts” who select the judges are giving money to the judges.
Please follow the links below for editorials arguing for and against appointed judges.
No comments:
Post a Comment