In the United States, the president nominates Federal Judges who are currently later confirmed by the Senate to serve judicial courts. Federal judges refer to both Article III and Article I judges serving as magistrates and handling bankruptcy. The selection process has been disputed for a long time, as some suggest that the selection process is more political (Paul 2). Like judges and magistrates, the federal government is committed to protecting people’s rights and providing security. In the recent past, people have been restricted from free movement to avoid the spread of the coronavirus, resulting in an imbalance between people’s liberty and safety. In my opinion, electing judges seems more appropriate than nomination. This essay is a critical exploration of the political influences arising from the nomination and election of judges, alongside weighing the balance between peoples’ freedom and safety.
Federal judges include Article III, Article I, and senior judges. Article III judges are appointed to serve for life in courts of appeal, districts courts, and in the court of international trade. The reign of federal judges is determined by their good behavior while exercising the judicial power of the United States. Article I judges are not entitled to life tenure and protection compared to Article III judges. Congress can reduce Article I judges’ salaries depending on their behavior. They serve the appeals court for the armed forces, veterans claims, U.S. tax court, federal claims, U.S. bankruptcy courts, and other territorial courts. The U.S. senior judges refer to the retired professionals who wish to continue their services to serve the law. The minimum age limit for becoming a senior judge starts from 65 up to 70 years.
Becoming a federal judge starts with the nomination of a candidate by the United States president. The nominee fills out a questionnaire which the senate committee reviews. After responding to the questions, the Senate holds a physical interview with the candidate to question philosophy, experience, and past rulings. After the encounter, the senate votes for the candidate depending on the satisfaction levels achieved. If the Senate does not approve the nomination, the candidate returns to the president for a re-nomination. If the Senate approves the second nomination, the candidate starts a lifelong commitment to serving as a judge. Still, if the re-nomination fails, the candidate cannot become a judge.
There are no formal qualifications to become a judge, which allows the president to choose candidates from different fields. Although judges require prior knowledge about law, the president can choose candidates from other professions. I believe that the president can appoint nominees with a hidden political influence. The appointed judges will most likely return the favor once approved (Paul 2). The president may also nominate judges for personal benefits, such as selecting family members and friends. Federal judges have the power to overturn activities such as cancellation and approval of bills presented to them. If the president wants a specific bill passed, the nominated judges must return the favor by ruling according to the president’s will. I prefer the election of judges to cater for justice and fair verdicts. The president will always have a dictatorial authority other than the nominated judges compared to fairly elected judges. There is a true reflection of the public’s interests if the federal judges are elected.
The government should protect the citizens from all forms of danger, including terror, diseases, and natural disasters. Sometimes, protecting people requires the government to undertake strict measures that may conflict with peoples’ freedom. The federal government relies on information obtained from people and investigative departments to assess the country’s security. Physical attacks such as September 11 resulted in spying of information from people’s phones and communication networks. The United States security levels were low, resulting in additional measures taken by the government to enhance security. The homeland security department was created for local terrorism detection and prevention (McEntire 24). The government had no choice but to fetch information from residents both directly and indirectly. Spying on peoples’ phones and emails was a highly criticized act. Still, the government defended the action by insisting that spying on people’s information was to aid in matters of national security, which was a high priority by then.
In many countries, people exercise the freedom of movement to any place at any time. After the outbreak of coronavirus in 2019, governments around the world imposed lockdowns and travel bans to regulate movement. Lockdowns denied the right to free movement in efforts to mitigate the spread of the virus. In the United States, areas with high infections faced curfews and closedown of public places, triggering anger and complaints from employers and employees. People were encouraged to work from home, whereas those without work stayed indoors. Although the COVID-19 restrictions were harsh to people and the economy, compliance was the most effective approach towards preventing and curing the virus. If the governments did not implement the lockdowns, virus casualties would have increased, especially in low-income countries with limited access to health resources (Winskill 6). People need to stay healthy to continue working and living normally.
I support the actions taken by the United States government on both security and health safety measures. On the issue of security, jeopardizing a country’s security affects everyone and the economy at large. The September 11 attacks scared investors away from the U.S.A. and resulted in fear of insecurity among American citizens. If my security is guaranteed, I will allow the authorities to violate my privacy by accessing information I share with other people. Since I have no intention of harming, the government can continue to spy on my devices as they search for suspicious details about the nation’s security. I would love to live and work in a peaceful country.
Regarding the freedom of movement, it is clear that if we interact unnecessarily during the COVID-19 error, we will be casualties or carriers of the virus. I support the curfews and lockdowns imposed to regulate local and international movements. Without regulation of peoples’ interactions, the infection rate would increase, resulting in more deaths and health problems. People should accept harsh measures during desperate times to secure their chances of survival. I would give up my freedom in situations of physical danger, personal health, and in cases where I may affect the well-being of others. Being healthy and physically safe is my number one priority to be able to exercise my freedom and human rights. Electing judges is the formal way to practice democracy and fairness in matters relating to the well-being of society.
Works Cited
Paul, P. T. “Recruitment and Appointment of Judges and Justices in Europe and the U.S.” Radboud University Nijmegen, 2018, pp. 1-6, Web.
McEntire, David A. Introduction to Homeland Security: Understanding Terrorism Prevention and Emergency Management. John Wiley & Sons, 2018. Web.
Winskill, Peter, et al. “Report 22: Equity in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Assessment of the Direct and Indirect Impacts on Disadvantaged and Vulnerable Populations in Low-and Lower Middle-Income Countries.” Imperial College London. Report no. 22, 2020, pp. 1-21, Web.