Friday, February 15, 2013

Selecting Judges


Wow - he looks intimidating!
States have developed a variety of methods for selecting judges. For example, Texas' judges are elected - from the local Justice of the Peace all the way to Justices of the Texas Supreme Court. And in Virginia, on the other hand, judges are appointed by the state legislature - and then must be reappointed from time-to-time. What method of selecting judges best guarantees that judges will serve effectively in all of the ways envisioned by the Founders:

Should judges be appointed (for life) or elected?

Now that you have read Federalist #78, be sure to explain Hamilton's point-of-view on lifetime appointments as well as your own.

126 comments:

Madison V said...

I believe judges should be appointed for life. It maintains a consistency in an ever-changing world, where the popular idea changes from day to day. If the judges were to be elected every four years like a President, there would never be any standards set and the expectations of the law would change based on who was in charge. We need someone in our country who can hold true to the documents our country was founded on, and by having the same judges appointed for life they will have unmeasurable experience that a new judge wouldn't be able to share. The way court decisions are ruled shouldn't be based on popular opinion because there is a set of laws, the Constitution, that does it for us. They are simply there to enforce the values of the Constitution and by having more experience, they are less prone to changing their opinions as those of the people change.

Travis S said...

I feel that judges make decisions that better follow the constitution and the laws of the nation if they are elected for life and don't have to run for re-election. This is because if they have to run for re-election then they will be tempted to make decisions that the people want not what is the correct ruling according to the laws. For example if the judges of Brown vs. Board of Education weren't elected for life, would they have made the decision that they did? There is a good chance that they wouldn't have because they knew that it wasn't what the majority wanted and there was a good chance that they would be re-elected because of it. For these reasons i fell that judges should be elected for life to keep from being pressured by the people to make decisions to help them for re-election.

Luke said...

For judges to serve in the manner that upholds the founding fathers visions, they should be appointed for life. Hamilton's view showing that judges are able to be impartial to groups of people due to the fact they don't have to worry about being reelected. It is hard to believe that a judge worrying about what the people think of him after every decision they make is going to be impartial. Hamilton tends to agree,"That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission"(Fed#78). Overall for a judge to be impartial,escape the ill humor of American society and make the right decisions, judges should be appointed for life.

Colton U said...

I believe that all judges should have to be re -elected every couple years. I believe this because if judges get appointed for life then they can change their minds on certain things and don’t have to really work at anything. If you have them get re- elected every couple years than they will have to be up to date and focused so that they get re- elected. IF they do a poor job they probally wont get re-elected.

Emily L said...

In my opinion, I think that judges should be appointed for life. As Hamilton talked about in Federalist 78, I believe that it is necessary that judges aren’t partial to any group of people. This is important because they shouldn't be bias against any one particular group causing unfairness in the system. Changing from judge to judge, will cause a difference of opinion because these judges will have the chance to develop different ideas about things. I think that Hamilton is right in saying that they need to be there for life, because they will eventually develop how things work over time and will be able to be equal to any sides.

Kamil said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kamil said...

Yes, I think that judges should be appointed for life because it keeps them true. It keeps them true to the Government and the Supreme law of the land, the Constitution. It does this because they do not have to be a "popular" judge for the people, they are able to uphold the Constitution and are always to able to make the "right" decisions, and so they will not be corrupt.

Katherine Trent said...

I see all of the positive in Hamilton's argument regarding an unlimited term for judges, but I think he is neglecting the negative. I agree that it is imperative to have a judge protected from the ridicule and ironically judgement of the population, but a life long term is a very long time. Once in office this is a very long commitment, and I would suggest put a maximum limit on the term. By putting a limit of 10-20 years, the judge could more consistently follow the constitution, while not being stuck there.

woodyleonard said...

I believe judges should be appointed for life because it protects them from the enormous pressure from the political parties and organizations. Congress has the shortest terms, set at 2 years, these 2 years are spent trying to please their political party, state, and organizations. This often keeps congressmen from getting much done. To vote against their party would be political suicide. This often leads to political stalemates. By taking out the factor of political party pressure, Judges are able to make unbias decisions based on what's right and what the people want.

Niko P said...

I agree that all judges should be appointed for life because it allows for a more consistant ruling power. Judges that are appointed for life do not have to worry about being re-elected, therefore, they do not feel pressured to rule certain cases differently to gain public support. Judges that have secure positions are more likely to make what they feel are the right decisions. However, I do agree with anti-federalist 78-79 that the Supreme Court should be liable to be called out if any misconduct takes place in any cases.

Sydney Dunbar said...

Judges should be appointed for life so they are not influenced in any way by a certain group of people. Money and power should not play a roll in persuading a judges true morals and beliefs. A judge that does not have to run for re-election will not have to please the most powerful group of citizens but instead will be able to help benefit America as a whole and make decisions that may not always appeal to everyone but will help improve the state of America to the best for their ability. The judges should not be chosen because of who supports them but should be able to follow their best knowledge and protect the security of the Constitution. They should not have to make the popular decision, but make the RIGHT decision.

Sydney Dunbar said...

Judges should be appointed for life so they are not influenced in any way by a certain group of people. Money and power should not play a roll in persuading a judges true morals and beliefs. A judge that does not have to run for re-election will not have to please the most powerful group of citizens but instead will be able to help benefit America as a whole and make decisions that may not always appeal to everyone but will help improve the state of America to the best for their ability. The judges should not be chosen because of who supports them but should be able to follow their best knowledge and protect the security of the Constitution. They should not have to make the popular decision, but make the RIGHT decision.

Sydney Dunbar said...

Judges should be appointed for life so they are not influenced in any way by a certain group of people. Money and power should not play a roll in persuading a judges true morals and beliefs. A judge that does not have to run for re-election will not have to please the most powerful group of citizens but instead will be able to help benefit America as a whole and make decisions that may not always appeal to everyone but will help improve the state of America to the best for their ability. The judges should not be chosen because of who supports them but should be able to follow their best knowledge and protect the security of the Constitution. They should not have to make the popular decision, but make the RIGHT decision.

Sydney Dunbar said...

Judges should be appointed for life so they are not influenced in any way by a certain group of people. Money and power should not play a roll in persuading a judges true morals and beliefs. A judge that does not have to run for re-election will not have to please the most powerful group of citizens but instead will be able to help benefit America as a whole and make decisions that may not always appeal to everyone but will help improve the state of America to the best for their ability. The judges should not be chosen because of who supports them but should be able to follow their best knowledge and protect the security of the Constitution. They should not have to make the popular decision, but make the RIGHT decision.

Sydney Dunbar said...

Judges should be appointed for life so they are not influenced in any way by a certain group of people. Money and power should not play a roll in persuading a judges true morals and beliefs. A judge that does not have to run for re-election will not have to please the most powerful group of citizens but instead will be able to help benefit America as a whole and make decisions that may not always appeal to everyone but will help improve the state of America to the best for their ability. The judges should not be chosen because of who supports them but should be able to follow their best knowledge and protect the security of the Constitution. They should not have to make the popular decision, but make the RIGHT decision.

chris cole said...

I believe that judges should be appointed to life, with the exception that they can be removed if something they do is wrong or unconstitutional. "Judges are liberated so that they can always do what is right, and not popular" (Mr. Ostroff). It is this fact that is stated in the Constitution that allows judges to remain in a life-time position. Although some might end up being very old by the time they are out of their position, they are still allowed to make the right decisions because they don't have to worry about what the people think.

eugene l said...

I believe ethat judges should be appointed for life because it lets them be free from being delagates. As delagates they have to keep getting elected so they are only concerned about their popularity and not doing whats right. If they aren't doing what right then where is the liberty?

Julie Wheeler said...

I believe that the judges should be appointed for life because if they are not they will most likely be pressured and influenced by certain groups of people. If judges are elected for life they also do not have the pressure of being re-elected which truthfully will change their opinions to fit the groups perspectives, even if they do not agree with them. I agree with Hamilton in that it is better for the judges to be elected for life.

Josh T. said...

I think that the judges should be appointed for life because it allows for a more secure and consistent rule. A life position guarantees that a judge would not be subject to the pressures of popularity. If a judge had a lifetime position, then he could focus specifically on what is right according to the Constitution.

patrick bryant said...

I think judges should be elected for life. Judges are an essential part of our government that keep the legislative and executive branches in check as well as the citizens of America. If judges have to worry about re-election then their decisions could possibly be corrupted by the fact that they are trying to win popular votes. If they are elected for life then they do not need to worry about whether or not people will like their decisions they will always make the right decision.

Cooper said...

I believe that Judges should elected into their positions. At the same time they shouldn't be held to a certain amount of terms, they should be allowed to run as many times as it takes to get into the judicial system or to stay in the system. This way it can keep our judges honest and keeps our system true adn we'll have a better chance of keeping our judges up to par and they can make the constant correct decision that refelcts the thoughts and beliefs of the constitution. Still if a judge makes a decision that is unconstitutional then they should be releaved of their duties and the runner up during the election should take his place, almost like a vice president who doesn't do anything until called upon.

Ian M. said...

I believe that judges should be kept in position for an extended time, but reappointed from time to time in order to allow judges to be independent of the government's constantly changing views, except when be reappointed. the reappointment periods should be long enough that the judge has the ability to think independently without being disconnected from the view of the governed.

Ian M. said...

I believe that judges should be kept in position for an extended time, but reappointed from time to time in order to allow judges to be independent of the government's constantly changing views, except when be reappointed. the reappointment periods should be long enough that the judge has the ability to think independently without being disconnected from the view of the governed.

Abby T. said...

I agree with Hamilton's view that judges should be appointed for life because someone that is just appointed for a time cannot be expected to ALWAYS adhere to the Constitution. He says, "That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission" (Fed. #78). I think that people who are elected for a term will be most concerned with being re-elected and might make decisions based on what they think would be most likely to get them re-elected, instead of strictly adhering to the Constitution at all times.

Brookie H said...

I do not believe that judges should be appointed for life. This is because the views of many Americans are always changing. Many people might argue that if judges were consistently elected every four years or some certain time frame they wouldn’t have the amount of experience that someone who was appointed for life may have. Even though this is true, it is important to consider the views of many Americans, not just one person for an entire lifetime. Due to the fact that America has two different political parties it is important to consider the views of both parties. For example, if there were a Republican judge appointed for life in a certain state, that restricts the Democratic party from having their voice heard in a certain aspect of the government. Every one must follow the constitution; that’s why it is the Supreme law of the land. So in order to create a fair and equal United States, both parties need their voice to be heard and the constant change in judges every four years would help create more equality in our country.

Nicole K said...

I understand the viewpoint that judges should be appointed for life because it is a way of avoiding making the popular decision instead of the right decision, but I also believe that as Katherine said, this viewpoint is neglecting the negatives. If someone is elected for life, they could abuse the privileges given to them. Which is the same thing that unlimited term is trying to avoid. Either way, there are going to be judges that abuse the system. There are too many exceptions to the rule and too many things that could go wrong with letting a judge serve for their entire lifetime. So I think that there should be a long term for judges to serve instead of a short term or a lifetime.

jack leslie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jack leslie said...

I believe judges should be appointed by the president for a life term. we must uphold the foundation our fore fathers made for us when creating the constitution. i believe this because it is vital for judges to be able to do the right thing all the time. doing the right thing even when it is not the popular thing is something that for most is very hard to do. making judges appointed for a life term makes this much easier. it allows judges to do the right thing without suffering the ramifications citizens would hold against them in future elections. in other words this keeps judges from having to manage the constant stress of staying popular in the eyes of citizens in order to be re-elected. contrary to this i believe judges need to be regulated much closer. having the amount of power a "life term" gives a judge can often make them feel as though they can do whatever they please. i agree with the author in anti-federalist 78-79 when he says judges need to be held accountable for their actions. judges need to be humbled such that they are always doing the right thing in fear of impeachment. i think impeachment needs to become much more prevalent, for example the judges who ruled gay marriage legal in california against the will of the people needed to be impeached, why? because that is tyranny....

Miranda M. said...

I believe that appointing judges to life is not the best idea for this rapidly changing society. It's only fair that all judges be appointed to an 4-8 year term. The different parties cause difficulties in life-terms because it will be hard to voice the opinion of both Republicans and Democrats. It's hard to create equality between the two parties so it would be a wise decision to give both opinions a voice.

Beys said...

I believe that judges should be appointed for life if on good behavior. The judiciary is weak, and it is always in danger of being taken over by the legislature or executive. A lifetime appointment makes it stronger and more independent, therefore, it should be allowed. Courts of justice protect a limited Constitution against moves made by the legislature. This duty is a strong argument for the lifetime term. In my opinion, Judges will feel independent. Independence is essential to do this difficult duty. Lifetime judicial appointments, during good behavior, are a huge improvement in government today. A temporary time in office would discourage qualified people from quitting a lucrative practice to accept a seat on the bench. Lastly, temporary terms would throw the administration of justice into hands that are less able and less well qualified.

Daniel K. said...

I believe that judges should be appointed for life, with review of "good behavior",from a judge, suggested by Hamilton. Review periods would be long enough apart from each other in order for the judge to gain full understanding of the always changing views of the government.

Katherine P said...

I believe that a judge should not be elected for life. I would agree with Hamilton in saying that the good behavior system is a fantastic system that has helped this country immensely. If a judge knows that they have to be on their best behavior in order to get re-elected or re-appointed, then chances are they will keep acting in an acceptable way. If they are not acting in a way that would best represent and respect the government, then the ability to get rid of the judge is something that should be retained. If any judge knows that they will hold their place for life, then they may slack off or have a bias opinion when dealing with cases. And, as Mr. Ostroff pointed out, if judges serve for life, then chances are a young judge will be picked to serve a longer term, as opposed to the most qualified judge. In the end, only bad can come out of having a judge serve for life. The best way to ensure that judges are right for the job is to allow citizens to have a say in who gets elected, and have the judges' performances evaluated before allowing them to serve another term.

Jonathan Wells said...

I believe that judges should be elected for lifetime, if they serve good behavior. Hamilton believed that judges who are elected for life are free from political pressures and won't have to deal with the politics of running for office. "It is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws" (Federalist 78). I believe that although judges should maintain their spot for life, every 10-15 years, the track records of every judge should be analyzed to make sure all judges are making good decisions. That might be a lengthy and unreachable idea to put in place, but each judge should be scoped out every now and then to determine if they are doing their job the best they can.

Hunter Prater said...

In my opinion I think that judges should be appointed for life. When a judge is appointed for life there becomes consistency in the courts. With a judge there for a long time you know how he is going to feel about something and you know how he will react because you know his beliefs. Although if you just appoint judges for terms then opinions keep changing and you can’t get used to what is happening in your government. Constant change could result in something bad for the government so you should defiantly have judges have life terms. Also in a life term you should have the right to get them out of their term if they do something that is considered unjust. The life term is something that is good for judges.

Q said...

I believe that the judges should be appointed for life, if there has been good behavior. They should should do this because it was what was set up by our founding fathers. It shows that these people will keep their views true as well as stay faithful to what was said in the Constitution. If there was a re-election it would create these judges to change their mindset for the popular party to be get re-elected. In this, it shows that the current life judges will do what is stated and right, rather then what could be happening in a 4-year term.

Marcy said...

While Hamilton believes judges should be appointed for their lifetime, I believe judges should not be elected for life. First, people change throughout their life. After being elected, a person may be impacted by an event in their life and then no longer feel the same about a topic you used to agree with them on. Next, as people grow older, they often are burnt out on what they have been doing for years. I would hope the judges are passionate about their job and the decisions they make the whole time they serve as a judge. If judges are appointed for life, the judiciary branch would weaken.

Emily Kelsoe said...

I believe that judges should not be elected for their lifetime in order to prevent many problems. The first of which is deviance from the actual thoughts of the people. When a judge knows that he is safe and won't have to worry about any re-election, he may tend to veer away from the path of "best behavior". I am in agreement with Hamilton's stance on this. Also, we avoid the problem of sacrificing the best candidate for the younger candidate. If we are electing a judge for life, many would vote for a younger judge in order to keep him for a longer amount of time. Yet, an older, perhaps more experienced, man could be best for the job but he would not be chosen due to his age. The best way is to not elect a judge for life in order to avoid the above problems and in order to reflect the changing views of the people.

Claire Criss said...

Humans are some of the most easily influenced species in the world. We are the most likely to make mistakes and go against other people's opinions due to the fact that morality in the eyes of the government has multiple definitions. Due to that, I believe that judges should not be voted in for life because we as Americans cannot put all our faith in one person for their entire life. My theory is that it is absurd to give a small amount of people power for such a long period of time which is why I believe it is a bad choice to elect judges for life.

Cole B said...

In my opinion, judges should be appointed for life terms. I agree with Hamilton when he states that when they are elected for life terms, then they become immune to the opposing views. They also do not need worry about being reelected, therefore, they will not be changed by these opposing views. A life term also takes away a system of great change. Because these members are appointed life terms, there will be a more consistent system through out many years. I believe that Hamilton is correct when he states that judges should be appointed for life.

Megan Riney said...

I do agree with Hamilton that judges should receive life tenure. With this judicial independence, the judges are free from popular opinion and influence and are always in the position to make a decision that is right and constitutional, despite the decision's unpopularity. As long as the judges keep just behavior and don't break any major laws, there shouldn't be any reason as to their ability to make good and unbiased decisions for the good of the people and the protection of the Constitution.

Ryan said...

I believe that judges should serve life-long terms for multiple reasons. First off, with life-long terms comes consistency. This means that a judge’s opinion will not differ and the reasoning they possess that they were elected for will stay the way it is. Also, because they serve life-long terms, they have judiciary independence where since they are already appointed; they can’t be revoked of their position just because someone may disagree with their opinion. They don’t have to care about pleasing others, only doing what is right. This is what we need in our country, unbiased and uninfluenced decisions in the judiciary branch.

Cameron said...

Although there be a lot of controversy on the topic, I believe that judges should and continue to serve for life. Judges who serve for life would not be concerned with the trivial of getting re-elected and would not be worried about how the voters perceive them. Hamilton states in agreement,” ,"That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission"(Federalist #78).” It is near impossible to believe that would be so caught up in running for re-election would be not be tempted to rule in favor of the will of the people instead of what they actually believe.

Christina B said...

I agree with Hamilton that judges should be appointed for life. When judges are appointed for life, they do not have to worry about the influence of public opinion and the pressure of re-elections. Often the decisions they must make are difficult and controversial, therefore drawing opposition to their rulings. With the judges appointed for life, they do not feel the pressure of popular public opinion. If they had to run for re-elections, their is a higher chance that they would base their decisions on what is popular as opposed to what is morally and constitutionally correct. Being appointed for life, the judges have much experience and are well-acquanited with the Constitution and will uphold the founding principles of the nation. The judges must make their decisions on what is just and fair and what is written in the Constitution, and that will only happen if judges are appointed for life and do not feel the pressure of public opinion.

Molly Aaron said...

I agree that judges should be appointed for life. They are appointed for life in order to maintain the seperation of powers. If they needed to be re-elected, they would become too focused on pleasing the public rather than doing what is Constitutionally right. To insulate the judicial branch from political pressure. The idea behind keeping them on board for a life time term is that cases will be decided more objectively if the judge knows that he isn't going to have to run for election. If he were to have to do so, then the temptation would be to decide politically sensitive cases based on popular sentiment rather than solely on the basis of law. Also, if judges served terms, then one president might happen to appoint several judges who have the same viewpoints as him or her. This would give the president way too much power.

Maddi M said...

I believe judges should be appointed for life for several reasons. First, if judges were appointed for life, they would not ever have to worry about the influence of people's opinions and the pressure that comes along with re-election. Secondly, if judges were elected every four years, there would be no standards set and the the law would change based on who was in charge at that time. Thirdly, if a judge is appointed for life then we can count on consistency from that judge. For these reasons, judges should be appointed for life.

Andrew Boyd said...

I agree with Hamilton on the fact that I believe judges should be appointed for life. By being elective for life, judges will not be pushed be re election. When re election day is coming, judges want to be re elected, in this case, judges might make decisions based on popularity of the people in order to gain support instead of on the basis of being constitutional. With having a life term, judges are not worried about getting re elected so they can base all their decisions on being unconstitutional or constitutional, not basing their decisions on popularity. If persuaded by re election, judges might go against what is constitutionally right in order to gain support.

Nick izzard said...

Though these supreme court justicies are exempt from the election process that all other forms of our government must succumb to, there separation from this process is necessary. Letting supreme court justices be elected every certain amount of years would force these justices to be influenced by the will of the people. This could in some way, introduce bias into the supreme court due to these justices representing what is popular instead of what is just. The nature of the supreme court is one of supremacy and this allows them to do that.

Daniel Acosta said...

I believe that judges should be appointed for life. One judge for a very long time would guarantee consistency on decisions that are based on the citizen's rights. Also if judges were to be elected every couple of years an scenario like the presidential election could erupt. Mass campaigning could create conflicting interest for judges and influence them on their later decisions. It is better to have a judge for life because his judgement will be constant and he will not be influenced by elections.

ellis cupit said...

I think U.S. judges should not be appointed for life. In the Supreme Court, for example, lawyers know exactly how to play to the judges opinions to get their way, because the judges have sat over so many cases in their life term. Although judges being appointed for life may offer a feeling of consistancy for everyone, the price of comfort is the loss of true justice. Secondly, as judges become older, their judgement can become hazy and their health can cause court dates to constantly be changed. This can not happen, and judges should not be allowed to sit on the bench while they are not in a right state of mind. In conclusion, it is not just illogical, but unresponsible to elect a judge for a life term.

Lauren C said...

I feel to maintain the strongest and most just system, judges should be appointed for life. If they didn't serve terms for a certain amount of years, then the judges could uphold the same expectations of the people and the laws under the Constitution. Judges must be appointed for life in order to avoid the influence of people during elections. This would allow judges to represent the popular, majority will of the people, rather than what is just and fair.

JulianneJacobs said...

I agree with Hamilton in that judges should be elected for life in order to maintain zero bias in the judicial branch. The judges can then dedicate their life's work to making sure that the law and judicial system remains constitutional. They can focus on this rather than running for re-election, which would just be a distraction. Elections might also create bias since you need to convince your voters to keep voting for you, which may result unconstitutionally.

Sam Kimichik said...

Hamilton is absolutely correct when he says that judges should be appointed for life. The judges wouldn't be influenced by voter's bias, and would focus on doing their job. People's emotions are constantly changing, and if a judge is re-elected, he/she would have to stay up-to-date with what the people want. However, what the people want may not always be right. What's right comes directly from the Constitution and a judge should be able to abide by our Constitution without worrying about public opinion.

Sara MacDowell said...

I completely agree with Alexander Hamilton's belief that judges should be appointed for life and only impeached if they do not maintain good behavior. Periodical appointments of judges, through the election process, would hinder the strength of the judiciary branch. By serving for life, they are not concerned and influenced by the voters and are able to focus all of their attention on the matters of the court. Over time, they gain experience and knowledge that newly appointed judges cannot immediately obtain. Judges are able to distance themselves from the will of the people and popular opinion, and instead, make just decisions in accordance with the Constitution. Popular opinion changes on a day-to-day basis and that is exactly why the judicial branch needs judges that are appointed for life. Judges need to abide by the principles of the Constitution in every decision, without worrying about the ever-changing popular opinion.

Selina R said...

I think judges should be appointed for life. If judges were elected, some people might vote for the judge that is more lenient so in case they ever had to go before him, he might have mercy for them. Also, I think the judges should be appointed for life, because they will gain experience and knowledge in the field and be able to make the best decision. The longer someone is at a certain position, the better and smarter they get in that position. Unlike the President, who is chosen by the people in order to lead them and be the people’s voice, the judge is not meant to be our friends. The judges are supposed to be strong willed and make the decisions that would best keep our town and cities in order.

Emily S. said...

Like every thing, it is important to look at both sides of an argument, especially for questions like these. I do agree that to an extent it is important to keep the judge uniform throughout because it insures consistency and educated decisions. However, it is important to also consider the cons of keeping the same judge for life. If the judge is doing a poor job, then why would we want to keep him on the bench? By electing a judge every couple of years would give the people the opportunity to either reelect the current judge who they feel is trustworthy or replace him with a better and more reliable candidate.

Natalie Johnston said...

Like Alexander Hamilton, I think that it's best for judges to be appointed for lifetime. When an election occurs for any kind of temporary appointment, many candidates are more concerned about connecting to the voters rather than establishing solid beliefs and promises that they would be able to fulfill. A lifetime appointment would prevent judges from continually trying too hard to connect to what's popular or target a certain group of people whose votes they are guaranteed to receive. It would also ensure that they would maintain these beliefs throughout their appointment because they are always guaranteed their position. This system is actually in the spirit of American values as well simply because it is primarily intended to put the Constitution at the center of the judiciary branch. The judges must make their judgements completely based on the Constitution, and with the elimination of elections, they are always encouraged to do so.

RidaBaharia said...

As Alexander Hamilton thinks, I also believe that the best thing for us is to have judges appointed for lifetime. Electing judges would be an extremely inefficient process in my point of view.The judges would feel the need to please us, the people, and not take in mind that being a judge is for them to be able to decide whether something or someone has gone against the constitution or not. And with lifetime appointments we know that they will not be seeking to please us and feeling the need to please us and seeking our votes at all times, it'll be a matter of doing the right thing and not worrying about what the people have to say to them. Also electing a judge every few years would never even give the people time to see him progress, people would be getting pulled in and out of the judiciary system so quickly. It wouldn't serve the judges very well either because they would try to achieve everything the best they can but they wouldn't know if they were guaranteed that opportunity again in the next few years.

Blair S. said...

The method for selecting state judges should be by the appointment of the state legislature. With the state legislature appointing judges to the state level there should be a better chance of electing the judges based on their resume and experience rather than opinion and favoritism from the citizens of the state. Supreme Court judges should be appointed for life because with the complexities and very publicized cases going to the Supreme Court, the judges should not have to worry how their vote will look to their party and constituents. The only thing that should be swaying their vote is the facts at hand for the case and whether or not it is constitutional. If the judges were swayed by the pressure of voting a certain way to get re-elected then their vote would not be unbiased causing an issue with the validity of their vote.

DillonS said...

Along with Alexander Hamilton, I too believe judges should be appointed for life. Doing so will allow judges to focus on their job rather than gaining popularity. This reminds me of when a judge, from the t.v. show "The Firm," was sentencing innocent, caucasian people to jail. He was doing so to help even out his ratio of blacks and whites being sentenced to prison so he could get re-elected. (He was later convicted) Even though the show is fictional, events like these are possible. Hamilton also adds, “I suppose the supreme judicial ought to be liable to be called to account for any misconduct..." (Anti-Fed. 78-79) Giving someone a job for life is no easy decision. Just because someone has job security does not mean their performance will always be accurate. I agree with Hamilton in that if judges were to serve for a lifetime, a committee must be established to review the conduct of judges to ensure the values of the Constitution are sought out.

Paxton S said...

The American court system is often criticized for not accurately representing the voice of the people. In fact, many times a court decision is startlingly unpopular. The Judicial Branch is not based on the will of the people, which changes often, but instead on the never-faltering rock of morality. Only judges who are appointed for life can truly represent this moral code. An ensured life-long term frees the judges from the bonds of politics. Life-long judges can make their choices free from worry about any upcoming re-election, and focus on finding the verdict that is simply more constitutional rather than popular. In the end, life-long terms for judges is most beneficial path to a moral and well-functioning Judicial Branch.

Danielle W said...

I believe that judges should be appointed for life terms. If they are elected for life, the judges don’t have to make decisions solely for the purpose of satisfying the people just to be re-elected again. This way, the judges can make decisions that are morally right and carry out justice, not just decisions that make the people happy. Judges already have a lot on their plate and they shouldn’t always have to be worrying about everything they say to satisfy people. Hamilton agreed with this idea of electing the judges for life. He showed that they are able to be impartial to people because they aren’t having to worry about being re-elected.

Lauren S said...

I agree with Alexander Hamilton’s idea that judges should be elected to a life-long term of service in the Judicial Branch. By doing this, the judges are able to focus their attention on issues that are lasting, not just popular temporary issues. Also, they amass great experience in their duties by having life-terms, whereas if they were elected for only a couple of years there wouldn’t be as much time to get experience. The most beneficial factor perhaps, is that by not being elected and re-elected, the judges do not have to deal with trying to please Americans as much as they have to work on doing what is best for the country.

Anonymous said...

I believe that judicial independence is achieved through lifelong terms. Hamilton states that “the independence of judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society”. Meaning that judges are given the privilege of lifelong terms, they don’t have to worry about pleasing the people so that the people will re-elect them. This gives judges the opportunity to do what it truly right and have the experience to know what is right. The “occasional ill humors” has to do with the fads of society what is cool for a limited time. Judges have to keep in mind these finds and should do what is right. Therefor giving lifelong terms to judges would be the most beneficial for our government.
-Megan Reynolds

Jack M. said...

I believe that Judges should be forced to run for election every 6 years. After a lifetime term, judges will become less concerned with how well the Constitution is held up. This is where the positive benefits to a 6 year term of a judge come. The judges will worry about being elected for the first term so they will be constantly dedicated to upholding the Ultimate Law of the Land. In conclusion, if the country changes their policy and all states uses a 6 year term for a judge, then the Constitution will be upheld to its best ability by judges.

Kellye McGuire said...

I believe judges should be appointed for life. If judges had to be elected than they would fall into the problem of pleasing the people. If they had to worry about pleasing the people, a few of the decisions would be unjust. The judges would have to make the unjust decisions in court in order to be reelected and to keep their jobs. If the judges did not have to worry about elections and the majority opinion, than they could focus only on the right decisions and protect the liberties of americans.

Tucker D. said...

I believe that judges should serve for life; however they should be elected rather than appointed for several reasons. First off, when a judge serves for life, it allows for a sense of consistency in our judiciary system. The public is not constantly adjusting to a new judge’s beliefs that will change our everyday lives. Second, when judges are serving for life, they do not need to worry about their job security because they will always have this job, thus allowing them to focus all of their attention onto the issues at hand. This will also allow them to see the issues from both sides and make a decision that will better our country. I do believe that judges should be elected and then serve for life because this will allow for the people to get a say in how our judiciary system runs. For this idea of elected judges to work, high positions, such as the Supreme Court, would need a national election similar to that of the presidency so that everyone is informed and able to vote on this matter that will be in effect for most of their life. Hamilton is dead on the point of life elected officials being impartial when he says in Federalist #78, “That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission.”

Cate Crowe said...

I believe judges should be appointed for life. If a judge is appointed for life it eliminates what the judge thinks about peoples emotions and the public, the judge will also not have to worry about being re-elected. If the judge is appointed for life, they can focus all of their energy in what is constitutionally right, rather then worry about reelection. Every individual and judge has certain interpretations and outlooks of the law, if the judges remain consistent so do the rulings. Also, people’s emotions are constantly changing and if a judge is appointed for life the only thing they will have to worry about is what is right; because what is right today will always be right tomorrow.
-Cate C

Michael Murph said...

I believe that judges should be appointed for life. By being appointed for life, the judges will be able to truly focus on what issues are at hand and they will be able to stay faithful to the Constitution. The judges will not have to be re elected which will keep them focused on their job and not allow them to waste time on campaigning. If the judges had to campaign and be re elected they would try to persuade and make the voters happy which could possibly lead to going against the constitution.

Brooke Bode said...

Since judges are such influential people in our government, I feel like they should remain constant throughout their life as a judge- meaning that they should not have to run for re-election. If the judges feel that their position is in jeopardy around election time, they will alter their choices in the court room to appease the short-term want of the people. If they make rash decisions like that just to satisfy the popular opinion they may end up hurting the future by doing what was wanted, not what was right. The judges need to understand the Constitution and the inner workings of the court and this takes time so having elections constantly will mess up the flow that our judicial branch has.

Kianna said...

Yes, I agree with Alexander Hamilton. I believe that judges should be appointed for life. Appointed for life creates a position that does not have to worry about upcoming elections or catering to the public opinion. The judges are able to establish solid beliefs without having to worry about the most popular view or preparing for a campaign. A lifetime position insures consistency within the government; the judges can focus entirely on the court. The judges are able to work for the good of America.

morganB6 said...

I disagree with Alexander Hamilton's suggestion to appoint judges for life. I believe judges should be re-elected every ten years, allowing time for gaining and utilizing experience and preventing the distraction of running for election every four years. Many argue the system lacks consistency when new judges are inducted after only four years. By altering the system to hold elections every ten years, consistency will be established and opportunity for adjustment and innovation will be sustained. With elections occurring every four years, the majority of focus is often directed toward getting re-elected and pleasing specific groups of people rather than abiding by the Constitution and using objective judgment. By holding re-elections every ten years, stability is maintained and the minds of judges are concentrated on and devoted to approaching their tasks in the intended manners.

Photography said...

In my opinion, I believe that judges should in fact be appointed for life. I believe this because although trends and fads may change day to day I believe that the judges in the judiciary branch should keep a steady hand in their beliefs and if they are appointed for life then their beliefs wouldn’t change day to day like the trends and fads of today. Also judges who are appointed for life do not have to worry about making decisions toward popular belief to be able to get re-elected in the next term.
Preston K

Upper School Government and Economics said...

If you're keeping score, 49 students agree with Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #78 - judges should serve for life. 16 students hold a contrarian view and would prefer that judges be elected...

... interestingly, one student suggests that judges should be elected and then serve for life; another suggests elected judges who would serve long (10-20 year) terms.

Great job, everyone!

Anonymous said...

In my opinion, judges should not be appointed for life. Political changes in our society occur on a day-to-day basis. I believe that after a 4-8 year term, a new judge should be elected and contribute his or her fresh new political ideas for our country. Unfortunately, judges may take advantage of their life-term and veer from the path of “best behavior.” In order to avoid judges from going down this path, it is vital that judges be reelected or replaced every 4 to 8 years so they can serve our rapidly changing society 100%.

Cassidy H

michael Mann said...

I believe that judges should serve for life. The reason is that not electing a judge for life causes him/her to have to campaign for elections, which could sway their decisions in court cases. If judges had to campaign for their positions they would have to worry about how they are seen by society which could cause them to vote untruthfully on cases. However I do believe that when judges first gain their position they should be elected by the public rather than appointed by the president.

Chris P said...

As the guarantors of the social contract, the guardians of the natural rights for which the government was created to protect, the justices of the Supreme Court are in the unique position of only being accountable to one thing: the Constitution of the United States of America. As Hamilton develops in Federalist #78, Supreme Court judges can only perform their job correctly if they are utterly independent from the other two branches of government and even the people themselves. If the Supreme Court judges were be elected or appointed for any periodicity (be it 5 years, 10 years, or even 20 years) with the ability for multiple terms, there would be some point during their tenure in office in which they may feel the pressure or obligation to please one of the other branches of the government or certain political parties. If these pressures were to then influence the decision-making processes during hearings of vital issues, the results would be a corrupt judiciary branch that cannot be fully accountable to the Constitution. Thus, life terms or those of a lengthy nature, provide a much needed stability in the judiciary branch at a time when unpopular decisions are viciously attacked in the media and throughout the political system. Another benefit of life/lengthy terms is that of continuity given that our law is precedent based. This knowledge expands over time through both written opinions but moreover from the institutional and communal awareness that a lifetime on the bench develops. And finally, tenure promotes efficiency and the ability to establish a well developed judicial philosophy that can come only from years of practical experience. Even though the current life appointment system is not perfect as presidents seemingly attempt to leave legacies by appointing judges who they believe will align with their opinions and make a lasting impact on judicial decisions, it does allows judges to make their decisions freely and independently and provide much needed stability, continuity, and efficiency to the office. Just as Hamilton crafted, I believe that the current tenure of the justices during good behavior (and perhaps during good health) would be the best option for the Supreme Court.

Erika I said...

I agree with Alexander Hamilton in that it is best for our country if judges are appointed to serve for a lifetime. This way, there is an unchanging standard that is upheld - without the imposition of persuading voters by use of propaganda or stretching the truth. Furthermore, because the judges are sworn in for life, they can focus more on the justice required of the job - rather than being re-appointed or re-elected. This way is especially effective if the appointed judges are able to make decisions with a solid foundation in the Constitution itself. Judges appointed for a lifetime will be more likely to succeed in getting the job done in the fairest way possible, and without worrying about their status of position because they are guaranteed the spot.

Erika I

Anonymous said...

I believe that judges should be appointed for life. This allows for there to be an unchanging standard that the judges can uphold. If they are having to go through elections every couple of years or so, they are more likely to be subject to the influences of the people who will be voting to either have them as a judge or not. These votes are usually based on personal opinions of what the people want. Judges would feel as though they had to change to please people in order to get the popular vote to be re-elected. This is not an ideal judiciary system. Judges will be more likely to do their jobs to the best of their abilities if they are appointed for life because they will not have any outside influences.

Chandler N.

Amy K Berry said...

It is crucial for our judges not to be elected for the office in which they serve especially on the national level. Our country does not need judges who are constantly thinking about how they will raise money for their next reelection or how they need to go out and convince people to vote for them. Judges need to be focused on the cases that are presented in front of them. They need to be able to make clear choices based off of what they believe and how they interpret the constitution. Our forefathers set up our government in this matter because they understood the importance of protecting the constitution and the rights that are given to citizens in the document.

Conor said...

Alexander Hamilton's assertion that Supreme Court judges should serve a life long term is essential to the power of the Judicial branch. If judges required reelection, their morals would be scrambled. Instead of making decisions solely based on what they feel is just, they would also have to consider what the public wants in order to be reelected. This mindset would break the ideals set forth by the founding fathers and ultimately, be a disservice to the citizens of the United States.

Jamie Quirk said...

I believe, along with Alexander Hamilton, that judges should be appointed to serve for life. This is more efficient because then each judge who would like the position would have to campaign, leading to false accusations and controversy. By the Supreme Court appointing the judge, it leaves out any room for bias and it shows that that particular judge has a lot of experience. With judges not having to be elected, it allows them not to be influenced by society and worry about how they rank with the general public.

Will A said...

I believe that Judges should be appointed for life so that they are not faced with the normal political pressure that troubles other politicians. Judges need to be free of this pressure of pleasing their citizens and political parties, and can simply focus on their job of declaring laws constitutional. Pressure from a political party might sway a Judge to vote a non-constitutional law to be constitutional or a constitutional law to be non-constitutional. Judges being appointed for life provides them with a certain independence needed to make unbiased decisions in the most important and influential court cases in America.

Connor said...

The question of whether a Judge should be appointed or elected is tricky. Of course elected officials will always show what the majority of people's wishes are in a community, but election consume a lot of time. Elections pose a distraction for judges who's primary focus should be on practicing the law. Additionally, elections mean that the judge is trying to gain support from voters, which means they become biased. If a judge is appointed for life, however, this means that they have undivided attention. On the other hand, being appointed for life leaves more room for tyranny. Having power in the hands of the people is better overall. Laws are made for the people, and judges should express the wills of the people. Despite there being a bias, this bias isn't bad because it expresses to majority will of people. A lifetime give too much power to a person, and once they are in office they are subject to outside influence. Re-elections of this office is better overall because laws are subject to change so judges should change with them.

Will.S said...

I agree with Alexander Hamilton. In a world where things are radically changing and our advancements continue to grow, it is pertinent to have a consistent judiciary branch. While electing judges could be argued as good thing because the judges can stay in tune with the current generations, a consistency could never obtained. Court decisions should not be based on new, popular beliefs. There needs to be standards that could only be maintained by a life long judge. As our government changes every 4 years, we need a branch that will stay consistent with its standards. The judges are in place to interpret the constitution and and enforce these value, and the best way to do this is to have life long appointees that will remain consistent.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Alexander Hamilton, in that, judges should be appointed for life. In the judiciary branch, there must be consistency. If different judges come in, with different moral standards, and opinions, the judiciary branch losses it credibility. In some cases, the judge would rule a certain way, and another judge would rule the exact opposite. The entire branch is run off of opinions, and if those in power were forced to run for reelection, they would have to mold their beliefs to fit the majority of the people. I believe that careful consideration should go into the appointment of judges, but then they in “good behavior,” should hold their office for as long as possible.

Meredith T.

Bryce H. said...

I believe that judges should be appointed for life. The Supreme Court has the ability to interpret and enforce the Constitution. Thus, a court that changes constantly opens the possibility for incongruous decisions and interpretations. Additionally, appointments, as opposed to elections, prevent judges from becoming preoccupied with campaigning or swayed by campaign contributions or lobbyists. In order to protect the Constitution, the Supreme Court must be independent, steady, and non-biased. The best way to ensure that is through life-long appointments.

Michael Roseman said...

The standard that is held for judges is unbelievably high and demands the utmost attention by society. My view is that, just as Hamilton believes, judges should be appointed for life. In order for the Judiciary brach to maintain stability and consistency, the judges must remain the same throughout. Obviously if an situation came up where a new judge is required (i.e. death), a new judge must step in, but the same judges should remain the same as long as possible. If new judges are being put into the Judiciary branch at will, two things can occur. The first is the obvious inconsistency of the judges views and opinions, which could force the judges to be viewed as non-credible sources and unreliable. The second is that of the inexperienced judges. The job of being a new judge may be overwhelming, and if new judges are being brought in every few years, many more mistakes are likely to be made than from experienced judges. Election could serve a purpose to elect those who help and monitor judges but while it is good new perspectives in the Judicial branch, it is necessary to keep all of the same judges together for as long as possible to maintain a sense of unity and validity.

Paige H said...

After researching in class, I have come to the conclusion that judges should be elected. I was inspired by Morgans comment, in which she recommended that elections be held every ten years rather than every four. I had never thought of this before, and her argument makes complete sense to me. I second her motion of ten-year elections. To begin, appointing a judge for life puts the constitutional backbone of the courts at risk. As time goes on, a judge, being human, becomes more comfortable with his position of power and could fall victim to disobeying the rules which he has become so comfortable with. In addition, electing a judge every ten years will keep the judiciary branch on its toes. Presiding judges will be motivated to make honorable decisions so that they will increase their chances of re-election, and other potential candidates will be encouraged to do the same in order to possibly be elected. Overall, elections energize the drive of the courts. Like the new guy at work, a newly elected judge walks in the door with the utmost motivation to accomplish above and beyond what is the standard. By preserving constitutional spirit, ten-year elections are an optimal choice for the judiciary branch.

Thomas N said...

I believe that if the people elect judges then they are insisting upon this person to have a sort of biased opinion towards the people who elected him. I think that for judges to be above all of the publics sway, they should be appointed by a higher power of the government to make sure they are judging without any public affect. The people appointing these judges should also have no sway from the public to prevent any public biases from entering into the judiciary.

Thomas N said...

I believe that if the people elect judges then they are insisting upon this person to have a sort of biased opinion towards the people who elected him. I think that for judges to be above all of the publics sway, they should be appointed by a higher power of the government to make sure they are judging without any public affect. The people appointing these judges should also have no sway from the public to prevent any public biases from entering into the judiciary.

TristanC said...

I agree with Hamilton that judges should be elected for life. They will be able to focus on the real issues our nation faces and have an opinion that is unbiased unlike the American people. Also, if judges had to be reelected every couple years their focus would primarily be on making the people happy with their views. It would change the way decisions were made in the court to the popular decision, not the right one.

Greg I said...

Hamilton thought that judges should be appointed for life. The reason for this is that they could have an independent point of view on the case in question. Basically he doesn’t have to be re-elected so he or she could make a decision based on rational thinking and not trends or persuasion from the public. I think that the judges should be appointed by the people and should be a judge for 15 years, but they would not be a judge for 5 years. This way if the judge was appointed for this particular case he could not interfere with the case. The public would be more inclined to vote for the better candidate and not the one who runs off of trending and the public could vote for their judges.

Leonel said...

These judges must be chosen carefully and respectfully by both the people and by higher officials since both perspectives would be considering in their choosing. I acknowledge the fact that they are human and would sometimes have a bias opinion, but for the most part they shouldn't worry about appealing to anyone since they are serving for life, and popularity is not important in the supreme court. These people were elected to interpret the Constitution as best and fair as possible and this is kept in balance by all the member collaborating and agreeing upon what seems best. I rather the people have a say in voting for the judges rather than have none at all, but there must be higher officials a bit more involved with the judges being passed as a supreme court official.

Mark_Moebius said...

I agree with Hamilton when he says that judges whom are appointed should maintain good behavior, but I believe that at least one judicial position should be based on an election. One of the key points in our Declaration of Independence is that there needs to be representation of the people. Even though the people vote in the President, who happens to be the one to appoint judges, there should be a direct election for at least one Judge to ensure the maximum participation of United States citizens.

Sadie R said...

Hamilton believes that judges should be appointed for life, I agree with Hamilton, because by electing for life, the judges will not be focused on reelection. When being elective for life, judges will not have to focus on campaigning for reelection, the judges will be able to make decisions based on what is constitutional. They would not be making decisions to keep their popularity by the people to gain support. I think the big picture is, with having judges elected for life, the will do what is right with the constitution, not just doing what they think will favor for the people and what is constitutional.

SahilV said...

Absolutely. I believe that life appointments are circuital for the judiciary for one primary reason: it removes the pressures of campaigning for re-election. The initial selection of judges will undeniably have political influence in any scenario. However, a life appointment means that the judges who have already are free from day to day-political pressure that would accompany another bid to secure a spot on the court if election were possible. The lifetime of appointment gives judges the “independence” in decision making that Hamilton argues is imperative to serve the key function of the judiciary as the arbiter of the law.

Scout S. said...

I agree that all judges should be appointed for life because it allows for a more consistant ruling power. The reason I agree with Hamilton is because if the judges are always having to worry about being re elected, it could really sway their opinion. Also, they amass great experience in their duties by having life-terms, whereas if they were elected for only a couple of years there wouldn’t be as much time to get experience. If persuaded by re election, judges might go against what is constitutionally right in order to gain support.

Morgan W. said...


With todays issues I believe that judges need to be appointed for life to keep everything less complicated. There are nine Supreme Court justices who are appointed for life. If these nine where to be sent to an election and run against others to take the place of a judge than there would be to many complications. With having them be appointed for life we can trust that they are going to stay on the same law that was there before and keep everything equal. Not being appointed for life is not going to benefit anything. With judges being appointed for life there will be less changes that could make things go bad.

Sarah V. said...

Along with Alexander Hamilton, I agree that judges should be appointed and serve for a lifetime. I do not think it would be a good idea to have the judges to be elected because they would have to campaign and the voters are not educated enough in the judicial system to be able to appoint judges that our good for our country. By the president electing the judges we can avoid people being bias or voting when they do not know enough information about the judges. If the judges run they would have to worry about the influences of society and also how they rank in the public. They don’t have to worry about re-election as well and can solely focus on what is good for America. If they have to be elected in every few years they may have the tendency to vote according to the influence of the people who are voting for him. Appointing the judges for life makes everything less complicated.

Katie Rostamo said...

I believe that judges should be appointed for life so that they will not be as persuaded by popular culture. Judges then will not have to worry about pleasing the public so that they can be re elected. If appointed for life, the judges will be under less pressure and can make decisions based on what is fair and logical. This will make for a more consistent ruling and judges will gain more experience that will serve them in the future, other than bringing in new judges that do not know the system as well. This life appointment will allow the judges to grow and become the best that they can be.

Brent Friedman said...

I believe that judges should be appointed for life. By appointing judges for life, decisions would be more consistent, making it easier to progress. Also, in a life term, judges would not be influenced by any specific fad or swayed by a specific group. When judges are required to be re-elected, they may be influenced to make the political decision and not the right decision. Judges would never be rushed to make the proper decision because there time is endless.

AlienorR said...

In my personal opinion, the judges should be appointed for life. By being appointed for life, the worry of trying to please parties for votes is eliminated. Judges no would no longer feel as if they have to conform their decisions to the majority of the people in order to gain votes for re election. Judges would be able to make decisions simply based on what they think is logical. The judges would be under less pressure and would gain more experience as time goes by. With re-election, judges can be persuaded to please the people. Also, there is always the possibility of not being re elected. A lifetime appointed position insures the government of consistency.

Nicole H. said...

I believe judges should be elected from time to time and not have the security of being a judge for life. If they were given a position for life, they would be more likely to not do their job to the best of their ability, since they do not have to worry about losing their jobs. If they must be elected from time to time, they will do better work in order to ensure reelection. Hamilton disagrees in saying the appointment of judges should be "the same with that of appointing the officers of the Union in general" meaning they are appointed by the president for life. Hamilton's argument is that since the judges will have their jobs for life, they are independent of thinking like the public, and their constant struggle to keep a job. I disagree with Hamilton because I think it is important to not guarantee their jobs, so the judges will perform to the best of their ability.
-Nicole H

justinator said...

Judges are most compatable when they are appointed for life. When you look at other elected officials, they always have the next election in the back of their mind. So they have to kiss up to the people rather than doing what they feel is right. A Supreme court Justice does not have that problem. One could say that appointment for life does not insure that they will do the best job. But they also do have to go through the struggle of consistant re-election mindset that makes us infuriated at other politicions.

Cole said...

Judge should be appointed for life. Free from political pressures and campaign stress, judges have the opportunity and freedom to be more prudent in their decisions. According to Hamilton, the constitution gives a sort of "independence" to the judiciary branch. With this "independence," judges can make decisions for the betterment of U.S.A.

Amanda Kadesky said...

I believe that judges should be appointed for life. It may sound unconstitutional for them to be appointed and not chosen by the people, but in a way they are voted for. When a state votes for their government officials the people are putting the responsibility of their lives in the hands of their representatives. So when a official (voted by the people) appoint a judge, he or she is being indirectly voted to the position by the people of his or her state. And when the judge is appointed for life one who appointed the judge should know whether or not the person is responsible enough for the life long job.

George W said...

I believe that judges should be elected for life, otherwise, the judge might be influenced by the will of the people and therefore not rule as to what may seem fit and proper. When making a controversial ruling, an elected official may not be allowed to hold that office after another round of elections because the people of his district may not believe the ruling was proper.

Meagan Ellis said...

I think judges should be appointed for life. Most political jobs only last for a few years or however long their term is, they do not have any job protection and are only kept if the people like them. If Judges are appointed for life they can get away from all the stress of the political parties and pleasing the people. The can focus on their job and making sure their decisions are constitutional.

GriffinL said...

I believe that judges should be appointed for life because if they had a secure job, they would not have the worry of reelections. I agree with Hamilton because then they would have to campaign. Also, they can worry more for the good for America not just for the good of themselves. If they are in elections, they could go for something that is not constitutional right just to get the popular vote.

Davis D said...

Like Alexander Hamilton, I believe that judges should be appointed for life. There is always the possibility that elections are corrupt and a lot of the voters aren't educated enough on the topic in the judicial system to be able to elect judges that represent our country. Bias voters are common and with the President appointing these judges, we wouldn't have to worry about voters voting when they don't know enough. Another reason why voters should be appointed for life is to withhold the pressure that comes with re-election. Not only does it remove the pressure, but it grants the judges with freedom and independence in making critical decisions.

Eric Hernandez said...

i believe that judges should be appointed to life instead of being elected. the judges would not be persuaded by parties to make any specific decisions to please them. by appointing judges for life it removes the pressures of trying to be re-elected and the judges decisions would not have any specific influence of any party. by judges being appointed to life it gives them independence to make decisions based off their best judgement and not be influence by a specific side.The judges point of view on things will be unbiased and not affected by other peoples opinions. without the pressures of trying to be re-elected the judges can focus more on making decisions instead of campaigning for re-election.

Maria I. said...

I believe that judges should be appointed for life. If judges were to be elected every few years, then they might change their opinions on certain topics. Judges would change their opinion because they would want to please the people. Judges would want to go with the public opinion because they want to be re-elected. If judges were to be appointed for life, then they would not have to worry about public opinion. Judges would just choose their own opinion.

Sophia R said...

In my opinion, judges should be appointed for life. I agree with Hamilton and his idea that judges should not be able to favor any particular group; if the judge has been appointed for longer, he does not go along with the fads that an elected judge would. An elected judge would follow the opinion of the public in order to get citizens' votes. If a judge is appointed for life, he can make wiser decisions to better America.

Catherine Graass said...

Its necessary for judges to be appointed for life in order to ensure the stability of the United States democracy. To be sure the laws are being instituted correctly, judges need to make their decisions free of worry for losing their job. Just like Hamilton, I believe that judges shouldn’t make decisions for any particular group. Their choices should be guided only by their knowledge of the Constitution and their own moral compass. The survival of the Democracy partially relies on how to how well they do their job.
-Catherine G

Anonymous said...

After reading Hamilton I have concluded that it is better for judges to be appointed for life. I agree with Sophia that the judges are less likely to give into new “fads’ if they are appointed for life. I also like that since they are elected once they are not persuaded by the publics opinion or by other parties. They can make more honest decisions if they are not concerned about being re-elected as a judge.
--Abby J

Corbin Campitelli said...

I believe that our justices and judges should be appointed for life. Because they are appointed for life they do not have to worry about pleasing people so that they can become re-elected. They will speak their mind and support their own ideas. Being appointed for life is also a solid rock for us because of our ever-changing world where opinions and ideas are changed daily. These judges can be concerend about their views and no-one elses.

- Corbin Campitelli

Kenzie B said...

I believe that judges should be appointed for life. After reading what Hamilton said, I came to the conclusion that having them be appointed for life is the better thing to do. If a judge is appointed for life, they will not be trying to please the public. That judge will know that they are there for life, so they dont have to please the public.

Ellen.v14 said...

Hamilton supports the idea that judges should be appointed for life. By having judges change constantly they are more likely to favor particular groups and follow with the popular opinion. When judges are elected constantly they would want to please the voters by changing their opinions to fit the popular opinion. When judges are appointed for life they stand by their final decisions and do not hesitate because it does not please the public. Without the stress and pressure of pleasing the public in order to be re-elected they are able to spend more time on cases and deciding what is best in a case. The judges are already elected with the belief that they will do what is best for our judiciary branch, so that should be held through life, not for a certain amount of time.

brian.g said...

I think that judges shouldn't be elected for life but in terms. I think this because if someone were elected for life they wouldn't be as inclined to do the best all the time. If the judges knew they would be in office for their entire life they know they will not have to be re-elected. New judges pose a threat to older judges because new judge need a job to and are willing to fight to be the best and to serve the country. People would be much less inclined to do so when their job is predetermined for life. Judges need to be aware of social issues as well as up to date with how our culture and society functions. Having judges in terms will be ideal because we will have the best of the best because they will have to earn their right to be elected as a judge.

BraydonLilley said...

I believe that judges should be elected for life because if they know they have a secure job, they won't have to alter their opinions to stay in favor of keeping their job. If they were elected, they would have to change their decisions and beliefs constantly so they aren't afraid of being kicked out or replaced. The judges would more likely favor certain political groups and opinions so they were well liked, biasing their opinion. If judges were elected for life, they would be stress free and could focus on their job instead of their position.

Kai Assoun said...

I believe that Judges should not be elected for life. If a judge is elected for life they have less of an incentive to work hard. On the contrary if a judge has to compete all the time for his position he will work harder to do a good job. When judges are elected they have pressure from new judges trying to prove themselves so they are more likely to work hard. Having judges in terms would be ideal because it would promote the best of the best to be judges.

TC said...

Judges should be appointed for life. There are cons to this decision but I believe they are outweighed by the pros. One pro a life-elected judge will gain is experience. They will be able to use the full extent of their knowledge of the judicial system to judge the cases they are working on. Judges who must run for re-election will waver on their viewpoints and must try to constantly please the people. While this aspect can be beneficial in roles like the Senate or House of Representatives, where they should comply and be actively aware of the people’s opinion, the judges shouldn’t be concerned with individual opinions to the point where they are effectively running a campaign instead of doing their job. So the pros to life terms are experience, and the extent in which they can carry out their mission while the cons are that the judges will essentially become like teacher with tenure, where they become lazy and careless. But the possibility of this happening is minimal because judges take their job with respect and responsibility. I believe judges should be appointed for life after going through a rigorous election process.

Tori C.

Jazmine W. said...

I think judges should be elected. I feel as the same judge forever is a little too much and we would need a variaty of ideas. The only way that can get done is if judges are elected after a certian period of time. They could be corrupted but that does happened they will be replaced.

Anonymous said...

I think that judges should be appointed for life. There are two main reasons for this, the first one is that if judges are appointed for life, then people won't have to adapt to different views of new judges. If we keep the same judges for as long as possible, it will eliminate inconsistency in the court for a more reliable system. And the second thing will provide is less inexperience from new judges who are re-elected.

Christian H

Morgan E said...

I believe that judges should be elected for life. This life time election is what makes the Judicial branch unique from the legislative branch and executive branch. Where the other two branches of government are fast paced and ever changing the Judicial branch seems more permanent and stately. Without the constant looming worry of reelection, Judges are able to do their jobs with only one thing on their mind, the law which is the way it should be.

Morgan Eastman

homeworkpando said...

it is too good from other post really appreciate all recmond all readers comments on post

eco 365 final exam


http://eco372finalexam.weebly.com/