Should the supreme court justices be elected rather than appointed?

Question

i have to write essay about it, any websites that i can go?"

Answer 1

Yes because that works so well with the Chief Executive position. Seriously, the idea of the founding fathers was to have the Court insulated from political pressures. That is why justices are appointed for life. Not only are they not elected, they cannot be fired. I will amend my answer with some links for you in a moment.

From CNN:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/columns/cossack.scotus.07.12/


FDR's Court Packing Strategy from a right wing group:
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0799fdrcourt.htm


From PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/democracy/history.html

That should get you started. If you need additional info, feel free to write to me.

Best of luck to you!

Answer 2

The Supreme Court can be criticized for being a little behind the curve of public opinion, and that is probably the result of not being directly responsive to political pressures. Most of the justices are always appointed by the last president, or the ones before that. Sometimes the Court is more conservative than popular opinion, and sometimes the Court is more liberal. Roosevelt was frustrated with the Supreme Court because it was so conservative, and Reagan was frustrated with the Court because it was more liberal than he would have liked. So the Court is always a little behind the times. But that is usually a good thing. For the most part, the process of appointing judges has worked pretty well. If it's not broke, why try to fix it. Making Supreme Court justices run for office could lead to a whole bunch of problems.

Answer 3

I saw Sandra Day O'Connor (former Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) speak today on the importance of having an independent judiciary.
I suggest that you listen to the NPR report at this link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5255712
We have three separate and equal branches of our government. The Judicial branch is where democracy is tested. The executive branch and the legislative branch make our laws and policies, and sometimes these policies do not fit within the framework of the Constitution. The courts must be independent so they can apply the law without fear of retribution because of sometimes whimsical public opinion. Partisan politics are tearing this country apart, but these judges are appointed by the President an confirmed by the Senate - so your elected officials are doing a part in this. This job is never without some politics, though, because of the appointment and approval process. On the current Supreme Court there are justices that have been appointed by Ford (Stevens), Reagan (Scalia and Kennedy), George HW Bush (Souter, Thomas), Clinton (Ginsburg, Breyer), and George W Bush (Chief Justice Roberts, and Alito).
Stevens was appointed in 1975 meaning the current court has the experience of nearly 32 years. There are 7 republican appointees, 2 democratic appointees and confirmations by ever changing Senates. There are appointees from 5 Presidents spanning 6 Presidencies (Carter has no appointees).
The importance of having an independent judiciary is as vital as having elections at all. Judges absolutely should be appointed (and confirmed). Judges can and are regulated and impeached by the federal court system for bad behavior. Judges should be fair and impartial, but in no way can we subject the judiciary to the poltical process or it will lose its power and ability to fairly negotiate differences between the citizens and their government.
Good luck on your paper!

Answer 4

No. The Supreme Court was intended to be completely void of political loyalty to anyone. That is why they are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and that is why they serve on the Court for life. They are supposed to be above reproach. They serve only the Constitution of the United States. Nothing and no one else.

If it were an elected position then we would have even more money wasted on campaigns and the court would no longer have anything to do with Justice or the Constitution. They would be political oportunist decided the fate of our Constitution.

Answer 5

it might require Amending the form and that isn't ensue. the rationalization why splendid court Justices at the instant are not elected *immediately* via the folk, is via the fact our founding fathers needed a splendid court that replaced into keen to rule against the commonplace public to uphold the form. even nevertheless a President would rent a splendid court justice, the Senate could be sure that appointment. So we do have a voice via our elected officers. collectively as our forefather needed a rustic outfitted on Democratic ideals, additionally they have been frightened of "mob rule via the commonplace public" and between the unfavorable effects to what you're suggestion, is a Judaical equipment that would desire to be unwilling to rule against the commonplace public. because of the fact of this we at the instant are not an instant Democracy, as a replace we are a representative Democracy.

Answer 6

I don't know of a particular website, but here's my 2 cents worth. The justices should NOT be elected because as "candidates" potential justices whould be inclided to represent "popular" opinion rather than the Constitution, including its first ten ammendments; the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights pretect an INDIVIDUAL'S freedoms. If "popular" opinion or "majority rule" dictated an individual's freedom, we would have NO freedom.

If I can think of a good site for you, I will come back and post it.

Answer 7

You just need to think this through a bit.

We have judges to apply the law to resolve disputes. Sometimes the results are not popular. Sometimes judges are biased...they're humans after all.

BUT...our system is set up so judges won't have a personal stake in the outcome of a case.

If you give a judge a situation where he has to find for an unpopular defendant and the judge has an election coming up...he has a stake in the case and may skew his ruling.

Appointments aren't perfect, but they keep judges freer of conflict of interest.

Answer 8

They should be appointed. And there terms should be for life. I mean cmon people. Why not life terms? Life terms insure that they will have wisdom for later in their lives. This wisdom will help them teach the others appointed. So if they are only there for 3 years there experiences will not be enough to train and help the next generation along.

Answer 9

no, the Justices are supposed to be above politics, if they had to worry about standing for elections, they could be held hostage to public opinion, for instance, what if the people as a whole decided that Jews should be put in camps? who would say no? here's a perfect link about that

Answer 10

No, if elected they would give in to the campaign contributors. That would be buying justice.