Close Topic Options

Supreme / High Court Judges

In most countries the Supreme or High Court's judges is chosen by the Head of State or other important body of power. Do you think that these Higher Judges should be voted in or nominated knowing that they may follow the trend of thought of those who nominate / vote them in?

Judges Court High Supreme

Nomination is fine with me. I dont see how a Supreme Court judge could be voted in, because who would be involved in the voting process. When I go to vote for President, I keep in mind that I am also potentially voting for someone who will/may nominate a Supreme Court judge. I leave it up to them and trust them to make that decision on my behalf.

Supreme / High Court Judges History & Civil Business Politics

By NOT having a single person appoint a judge, the judge becomes more independent. This is the reason that the US Constitution is set up the way it is. This separation of powers can be a huge aid in reducing corruption within the judicial system.

Judges Court High Supreme

I think they should be voted because most of the time the person who nominates them ended up chosing 'buddies' or someone who will help them in that regard if they ever get in trouble. It always happens and that's why most justice systems around the world are so corrupt.

Judges Court High Supreme

In the US, local judges are elected. Higher judges, especially appellate judges (those who decide appeals), are generally nominated by the Executive, then confirmed by the Legislature. This separation of powers allows the various branches of government to check each others' powers and actions.

Supreme / High Court Judges

I think that tha american system is adequate in protecting freedom. However, I do not believe that any juge appointed to the federal courts should be tenured for LIFE. This can lead to an abuse of power. (as was evidenced in the november election Ohio ruling by judge Guy Cole) Although this policy prevents high office holders from replacing political enemies, the judges can also use their power to displace THIER political rivals.
Happy Holidays

Supreme / High Court Judges

In the United States system, vacancies in the Supreme Court are filled by a nomination from the President. The nomination must be ratified by the Senate. In effect, the judge is both nominated and elected.
However, this can also lead to a power struggle, especially in the US where only two parties are dominant. If the President is of one party, and the majority in the Senate are of another party, then the Senate may refuse to ratify the President's nomination simply because of party spite.

As was said by Student, I think the founding father's idea to make Supreme Court appointments to be for life was a very bad idea. I also think that the Supreme Court was given an excessive amount of power by the Constitution - or at least, they power that they have has been abused. The power of the Court is supposed to be to declare any specific law unconstitutional. Now, any ruling that the Court makes, in effect, becomes a law in itself.
The founding fathers, in the spirit of checks and balances, gave Congress the power to limit the power of the Court over any specific law, but, to my knowledge, it has only been recently that either the House or the Senate has thought to exercise this power.

Apart from opposing all political party lines, I think the Supreme Court justices should be elected, and that this election should be done by state, with each state receiving one vote. In the case of a tie, the Senate would break the tie. As for how the vote for each state is cast, that would be up to the individual states. Some may choose to include it on the ballot, some may choose to have the state legislature vote, some may choose to vest that power solly in the governor. Also, terms for Justices should be limited to 11 years of something - an odd number, so Justice terms lining up with Senate terms would be unlikely (once every 22 years, the Justice's term would line up with 1/3 of the Senate).

Supreme / High Court Judges Politics Business Civil & History

The problem with electing judges is that they are much more likely to rule based upon popular opinion, keeping in mind that they will need to run for election again soon. In Massachusetts none of the judges are elected, not even local judges. There is good and bad with this. First, they have no real accountability. This is bad when they decide to disregard the law and just act in the manner they fell best based upon their own politics or morals. However, that is what the appeals process is all about. When this happens, an appelate judge can over rule. However, this is also good because no judge should rule based upon popular opinion either. Just because a particular crime is the "flavor of the month," I don't want a judge listening to popular opinion when determining a person's guilt or innocence or in passing sentence. This needs to be done from a position of complete impartiality. If a judge has to run a campaign to keep their job, how impartial will their rulings be? At the same time, if they have to run a campaign, maybe they would be more concientious in some of their decisions so I guess there is good and bad both ways.