what are th pros and cons of electing a justice (supreme court judge) for life?

Question

pros and cons. i know that there are a lot more pros then there are cons....please help.....thank you!

Answer 1

Federal judges are not elected, but appointed for life by the executive, ie president. Some states also use life time appointments, with or without retention elections.

Pros are judicial officers do not have to give in to fickle political pressures, independent application of the law.

Cons are they are hard to impeach and they exercise too much power to circumvent the duly elected branches of government.

Answer 2

on the State element I say that is as a lot because the electorate of the State (and obviously, what the State structure says) i bypass decrease backward and forward in this one for US very best court docket Justices. The structure obviously says lifetime appointment and no relief in pay so as that they don't ought to worry being elected and can make 'independent' elections. no matter if that is interior the structure then this is the regulation of the land and that i help that position. although, it also says that because the very best court docket Justices are appointed and by no skill elected they're meant to be the weakest of the three branches of authorities. That went out the door virtually right now after the structure replaced into ratified (See "Marbury v. Madison") and liberals were 'legislating from the bench' each and every on the grounds that. a good attitude, i imagine, is to reinforce the impeachment guidelines for judges and each and every time it must be proved that a very best court docket decide (or any decide for that remember) overstepped their bounds a particular style of situations (say 5 situations as an social gathering) they could be impeached and removed from place of work. that delivers them the autonomy the structure demands and nonetheless keeps them honest.

Answer 3

The pro is that being insulated from political pressure gives them the capacity to remain as objective as they need to be to do their job right.

The con is that they aren't always as objective as they should be. Sometimes they are blatantly biased against an ideology and will never give that ideology the fair hearing that it deserves. They thus end up doing their job wrong.

In other words, pro means that we expect them to be objective and con means that in real life they often aren't as objective as they should be.

Answer 4

Basically, they are usually appointed when they are so old that "for life" is the only logical term anyway.

And remember that Supreme Court Justices are appointed, not elected.

Answer 5

its terrible that we have such a law and can not get it changed. you get some idiot on the supreme court and you're stuck with the fool for the rest of his life. The people of this country deserve better than this. I know your teacher is going to tell you how great it is that we have this but its a bunch of bunk.

Answer 6

Well if you don't agree with their politics or general opinions on things(conservative vs. liberal) you could be stuck with them and their rulingsfor a very, very long time. For instance, the current Supreme Court is pretty conservative. I'm a liberal so I disagree with the majority of their opinions.