Should supreme Court Judges be elected, rather than appointed, and have specified terms for that position?

Question

Lifetime Power is Absolute Power, and Absolute Power corrupts.

Answer 1

yes they should....it's called democracy

Answer 2

No for both questions. First of all, the American public is not qualified to select a judge. Americans think that being is a lawyer is akin to "Ally McBeal" or any other lawyer show on tv and it is incredibly different. There is so much that goes into being a judge and choosing a person on the basis of personality and how they look (which is what the public will undoubtedly do) just will not work. We will end up with a bunch of unqualified people in the highest court in the land, which is a very bad idea.

Second, Supreme Court judges need lifetime tenure because they often end up making the tough decisions. Many times, the president and the legislature will make a law that benefits some people, but really harms other less popular people (ie- this frequently happens when making legislation about prisoners). The Court is there to protect these less popular people from unconstitutional action and tyranny of the majority. If they did not have lifetime tenure they would not be able to make these tough decisions because they would be worried about loosing their jobs.

I'm not saying that I like the system as it currently is. Personally, I think that all of the judges in the country should be the ones choosing the Supreme Court judges. Who better knows who will do a good Supreme Court Justice than other judges?

Answer 3

There need to be checks and balances to control the power of the Supreme Court.

But popular election is not the way to do it.

In Louisiana, the state supreme court is elected.
When the issue of legalizing gambling first came up, the courts looked at the state constitution. It says "The Legislature shall have the power to define and supress gambling in Louisiana"
So when someone sued saying that opening up casinos was unconstitutional, the governor told the judges "either vote my way and allow it, or I'll get someone to run against you in the next election"

As far as the national Supreme Court, there are ways to control the Court's power.

Here are two versions of the 'nuclear' option:

1) Impeach a Justice who makes a series of unpopular (and/or senile) decisions.

2) The President and Congress declare "We don't care if the Court declared it unconstitutional. We are ignoring the decision, and enforcing this law"

Answer 4

It's always tempting to want to change the equation when decisions made by the Supreme Court don't agree our personal opinions, however the reason for the lifetime appointment of a Supreme Court justice is so that they can't be bribed or coerced. The opinions made by the Supreme Court seem to balance out and there's always the state level to influence laws, so it's not as if there is no recourse to popular opinion.

Answer 5

If we vote and they have a limited time in office, assuming they could run for re-election, then they would pamper to the court of opinion and good press, rather than stand by the beliefs that got them there in the first place..

And if we vote for them, we, the vast majority, would vote for the best marketing campaign, rather than the most deserving..

The process as is, while not perfect, is probabaly the best.. unfortunately, some real deserving legal minds are caught in the juxtaposition of partisan politics. and not just at the Supreme Court level.. but in the lower courts especially

Answer 6

They should remain appointed! Some judges may have become a little jaded, but they do know the law and have years of experience. Do you really want another public official judging you based on public opinion and the next election? We have enough of those problems. Term limits might not be a bad idea though.

Answer 7

I don't think so. If they were elected, they would not look at the law objectively. They would "interpret" the law whichever way they think would get them more votes. I like them being appointed, but I think we should be able to vote them out. Maybe by 3/4 vote in Congress or 3/4 popular vote. We need to have some way to get rid of corrupt or senile judges. But it has to be a very difficult process so it only happens in emergencies.

Answer 8

the idea of being appointed for life is that: these judges would not be susceptible to public opinion..they would never have to seek reelection, or any election in the first place. I think its fair that Presidents appoint judges..because we elected the President..
I think that long appointments are good because then they are not influenced by election cycles...but I'm not so sure about lifetime appointments..you end up with someone who is 90, and half senile, who won't remove him/herself from the bench making important decisions..this is not good!

Answer 9

What are you crazy

Don't mess with the constitution. George Bush swore on a Bible to protect and preserve the Constitution.

Protecting the constitution is the top priority of every American If you are thinking about changes then you must be a liberal blue Smurf and not an American

Go big Red Go


Go big Red Go

Answer 10

Well, they should...but then, it would still be who can buy the most votes. Mr Bush should NOT be picking any appointments like that, because as long as they follow what he wants to do, he will get them in. His #1 issue is still Roe vs Wade, & he has chipped away at it as long as he has been in office. If he gets rid of it, women's rights will be in shambles & we will be set back 40 years or so. He has done far more damage than this, but it is an important issue to be just tossed away because you think you are Christian.

Answer 11

Absolutely not!

The interpretation of law requires some amount of historical perspective and should be kept as free as possible from the temptation to make decisions based on political purchase.