• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the judicial branch be democratically elected?

See title of thread

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • No

    Votes: 21 91.3%
  • Undecided/other

    Votes: 1 4.3%

  • Total voters
    23

SocialDemocrat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2014
Messages
922
Reaction score
309
Location
The beautiful Pacific Northwest
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
No, the judicial system should not be subjected to the sway of public opinion anymore than it already is. I find it odd how many people are only adopting a position in favor of electing judges in response to the SCOTUS ruling. Support for political reform should not be motivated by enabling your side to win.
 
Voted No, there is little reason to expect different results just because we moved the politicalization of the process away from Congress and onto a similar process for the voter.
 
Elected by whom? In what manner? How often? Isn't it better to have our three branches of government all determined in different ways? We have one with a national election, one with local and state elections, and one by appointment. And while the focus of this discussion is obviously the supreme court, what about federal judges? Would they be elected? By whom? In state courts, it can very between appointments and elections. Would this supersede those state decisions?

This is a very complicated question.
 
No, the judicial system should not be subjected to the sway of public opinion anymore than it already is. I find it odd how many people are only adopting a position in favor of electing judges in response to the SCOTUS ruling. Support for political reform should not be motivated by enabling your side to win.
I say no. That would make things worse.

Judges should be impeached when they do wrong.They can be impeached.
 
Absolutely not! Electoral pressues puts upon judges the requirement to raise money and seek endorsements.

This creates a huge and undesirable conflict of interest for judges. Especially for local elections. That's because the public very rarely engages in local judicial races. Instead the very first-in-line donors/endorsers are deep pocket lawyers, who try to use their funds, which the judges need to get re-elected, to buy favor and influence court decisions.

At the same time lifetime appointments have also shown corruptability. Especially within the big city political machines that operated during the early 20th Century.

I think one of the better models is executive appointed judges that are held to either retainer elections, or state house(s) confirmations.
 
Not just no, but "HELL NO!" Most state court judges are elected, right up to the State Supreme Courts. Most run unopposed and belong to whichever political party controls their district. They clearly represent the political ideology of that party and their decisions not only reflect that, but are easily swayed by public opinion if they expect to get re-elected.

Supremes should remain free in the hope that they make unbiased decisions based on law, not public opinion. The only way to do that is to continue lifetime appointments. While this sometimes results in political hacks (like Clarence Thomas) who can be depended to vote the party line, it also allows for Judges like Kennedy, who are also able to base decisions on fair Constitutional grounds.
 
Not just no, but "HELL NO!" Most state court judges are elected, right up to the State Supreme Courts. Most run unopposed and belong to whichever political party controls their district. They clearly represent the political ideology of that party and their decisions not only reflect that, but are easily swayed by public opinion if they expect to get re-elected.

Supremes should remain free in the hope that they make unbiased decisions based on law, not public opinion. The only way to do that is to continue lifetime appointments. While this sometimes results in political hacks (like Clarence Thomas) who can be depended to vote the party line, it also allows for Judges like Kennedy, who are also able to base decisions on fair Constitutional grounds.

What makes lifetime appointments superior to term-limited appointments?
 
No, the judicial system should not be subjected to the sway of public opinion anymore than it already is. I find it odd how many people are only adopting a position in favor of electing judges in response to the SCOTUS ruling. Support for political reform should not be motivated by enabling your side to win.

I do not see that popular election of the USSC would improve anything.
 
What makes lifetime appointments superior to term-limited appointments?

Well, term limited appointments would have the same problem of sucking up to retain the post, only directed at the appointing authority instead of the electorate.

But it also adds the additional problem of allowing each President the opportunity to stack the entire Court with loyal political hacks. Just look at Franklin Roosevelt and his attempts to increase the number of members on the Court so he could appoint a loyal majority in support of his social program.
 
Well, term limited appointments would have the same problem of sucking up to retain the post, only directed at the appointing authority instead of the electorate.

But it also adds the additional problem of allowing each President the opportunity to stack the entire Court with loyal political hacks. Just look at Franklin Roosevelt and his attempts to increase the number of members on the Court so he could appoint a loyal majority in support of his social program.

Not if Justices only served one term. I support staggered terms, with a new Justice appointed every 4 years or so in order to prevent a single presidency's appointees from singularly controlling the judiciary through court packing.
 
Not if Justices only served one term. I support staggered terms, with a new Justice appointed every 4 years or so in order to prevent a single presidency's appointees from singularly controlling the judiciary through court packing.

Okay, using your example, as there are Nine Justices, in order for only one to be appointed for each 4 year term you would have to stagger the appointments.

1. How would you work that from a starting point needing all nine seated at any one time?

2. If you could establish it somehow, then how do you prevent a two- term President from appointing a majority during his term in office?

3. How would you deal with deaths before a term was completed?
 
Okay, using your example, as there are Nine Justices, in order for only one to be appointed for each 4 year term you would have to stagger the appointments.

1. How would you work that from a starting point needing all nine seated at any one time?

A timeline based on seniority, with the current justices being phased out in four year intervals.

2. If you could establish it somehow, then how do you prevent a two- term President from appointing a majority during his term in office?

A two term president would only have the opportunity to nominate two supreme court justices. This may change the overall balance of the court, but that's unavoidable and happens anyway with lifetime appointments.

3. How would you deal with deaths before a term was completed?

The successor to the deceased justice would be appointed by the incumbent presidency through the same process as other justices and only serve out the remainder of the term, in order to keep the cycle consistent.
 
A timeline based on seniority, with the current justices being phased out in four year intervals.



A two term president would only have the opportunity to nominate two supreme court justices. This may change the overall balance of the court, but that's unavoidable and happens anyway with lifetime appointments.



The successor to the deceased justice would be appointed by the incumbent presidency through the same process as other justices and only serve out the remainder of the term, in order to keep the cycle consistent.

Umm...your plan doesn't work mathematically. In order for each Justice to serve a single four year term before being replaced in time to maintain a nine member Court, you'd have to start with one Justice immediately, and then one at intervals of either every six months or every year later to get rid of the original nine. That means there will be an overlap at various points. A two term president could appoint at least 5 Justices during his period in office, and maybe more in the event of a death of a seated Justice.

Life appointments work, and remain the best idea of the drafters for the Supreme Court to function as it should IMO.
 
Absolutely not.

Electing Judges would push us farther towards a "Democracy" (Mob Rule) rather than a "Republic" that we are today.

(Its funny how I have to keep reminding people that we have a republic form of government today)
 
Back
Top Bottom