Whether to elect or appoint judges has had lengthy and disorderly history. The issue of judges being selected is because they have the ability as jurists and not just because of their political affiliations. They are given the power to infer statutes, evaluate administrative decisions, and pronounce legislative and executive actions unlawful. The fact that judges make decisions on issues of great importance to the public, therefore, means those publics have some control over the judiciary by voting for judges (Michael).
There are two basic methods used in the selection of judges which are election and appointment. In the elective method, the judicial either nominate a candidate who is supposed to run for with a party identification or a judicial candidate can be generally nominated by an independent primary and runs in the election without a party label. This will ensure that the public has a voice in the lawmaking process and that members of racial and ethnic minority groups have a chance to become judges. For an appointment, the responsibility rests on the governor, the legislature, or a judicial nominating committee. For one to be appointed Professional competence is required and the judicial advisory committees are responsible for assessing the qualifications of the lawyers to be appointed (Lawrence 94).
For the judicial review to be effective independence is important and is maintained mainly by life tenure which states that the federal judges should hold their positions during good behavior. They should only be removed from office only by prosecution and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes. They receive no special training apart from their graduate program from law school and are respected for their learning, experience, and impartiality (Lawrence 98).
Appointed judges have life tenure and are less exposed to political pressure thus making them superior to elected judges who are elected for short terms. Appointed judges also write higher quality opinions than elected judges who are not less independent but because they write more opinions their quality is compromised by the quantity. On the other hand, elected judges are more attentive to the provision of services to the people thus they behave more like politicians, and appointed judges are more attentive to their long-term heritage thus behaving like professionals.
The elected judiciary leads to an out-of-control judicial system and unfair results while in the appointment the public has no power in the process which makes them not to be transparent because it does not allow for discussion and thus the judges are not scrutinized by the public. Judiciary is reactive and must wait for the cases to come before them and it cannot initiate lawsuits which acts as a coolant on provocative issues making it possible to make rational decisions (Clyde 27).
Appointing judges is good because it gives the president the responsibility of appointing the national judges and justices and requires that nominations be confirmed by the Senate unlike in electing where the idea behind electing the judges is that voters are able to choose good judges who reflect their ideals better than the elected officials.
The appointment is the best method of selection as it makes sure that judges maintain their independence and it makes them not submit themselves to the approval of the public. This is based on the argument that the public are unqualified and do not have the necessary background to know what qualities make a good judge.
In appointment, the President relies on sources such as the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Investigation, members of Congress, sitting judges, and justices to recommend suitable nominees for judicial posts. Also, the senator from the state in which the position of a judge occurs makes the decision and sends a nomination to the President who almost always follows the recommendation (Michael).
The president must consider some factors in making choices for federal judgeships such as experience where the nominee must have had substantial judicial or legislative experience either on the state or federal level. They should have the same political ideologies as the President which can be either liberal or conservative depending on the President’s position.
Because federal judges high court justices serve even long after a president’s term of office ends it should therefore be his or her most important heritage as these choices have an impact on future generations.
The advantage of appointing is that higher quality judges who have greater independence are selected since their qualifications are reviewed comprehensively by a panel whose members have the necessary knowledge of evaluation of characteristics of a good judge.
The chances are that lawyers with excellent judicial expertise are likely to seek the office through the nomination process than through the election process (Michael).
It will ensure that Lawyers will not spend most of their time asking for political support to obtain the judicial nomination, political influence will be minimized and the judiciary will be saved from the stress of going to look for the support of the party.
The appointive method results in the selection of better judges as it avoids the inappropriate aspects of the involvement of the candidates in contested elections.
Works Cited
Michael J. Brodhead, David J. Brewer: The Life of a Supreme Court Justice, 1837-1910.
Lawrence H. Larsen, Federal Justice in Western Missouri: The Judges, the Cases, The Times 93-112 (Mo. Press 1994).
Clyde Edward Jacobs, Law Writers and the Courts; The Influence of Thomas M. Cooley, Christopher G. Tiedeman, and John F. Dillon upon American Constitutional Law (Cal. Press 1954) 23-45.
Michael J. Brodhead, David J. Brewer: The Life of a Supreme Court Justice, 1837-1910 (So. Ill. Press 1994) 145-167.
History of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota 11 (West 1989) 2-19.