It should be noted that the role of judges is to guarantee fair decisions to the parties to the process. Accordingly, in an adversarial process, the role of the judge is to control the process and ensure that the rules of evidence and procedures are followed. Thus, based on established rules, laws, and the principle of judicial ethics and virtue, they decide which evidence is admissible and which is inadmissible, respectively, should be excluded from the trial (Supreme Court of the U.S., n.d).
After that, the judges need to consider all admissible evidence transparently, impartially, and based on precedent and rules and establish a fair decision. Additionally, a procedure should be established for selecting judges for the U.S. Supreme Court. First, a judicial vacancy is opened, and the President proposes a nominee for the position. The Senate then takes a vote to approve or reject the nominee. Such a vote is legitimate if decided by a simple majority (Supreme Court of the U.S., n.d). This method of electing judges is necessary to ensure that the executive and legislative branches of government have a voice on the Supreme Court.
However, the procedure for selecting judges raises questions about the politicization of the judicial process of selecting judges of the US Supreme Court. This is due to the fact that politicians involved in the highest bodies of state power approve or reject judicial candidates (Supreme Court of the U.S., n.d).
Accordingly, they can be guided by their own interests or the interests of the party and not by the virtues and knowledge of a particular candidate. Therefore, in my opinion, this leads to the selection of judges according to the criteria of compliance with politics rather than the assessment of their qualifications. I suppose the primary qualifications for judges are to be neutral, fair, and competent. This would help judges not get involved in the political process, but make fair decisions.
Reference
Supreme Court of the U.S. (n.d.). General Information. Web.