Skip to main content

What are some pros and cons of appointed judges?

In essence, there is just one pro and one con to having appointed judges.  The pro is that appointed judges are free of the political process.  The con is the same, worded differently.  Appointed judges are bad because they are not democratically elected and therefore are not subject to the will of the people.


If you need more points each way, you can split each of these up to some degree, creating “subpoints” that are...

In essence, there is just one pro and one con to having appointed judges.  The pro is that appointed judges are free of the political process.  The con is the same, worded differently.  Appointed judges are bad because they are not democratically elected and therefore are not subject to the will of the people.


If you need more points each way, you can split each of these up to some degree, creating “subpoints” that are part of the larger idea.  In favor of appointed judges:


  • Appointed judges are chosen on merit.  Judges or good or bad based on how well they know the law and how to apply the law to court cases.  They should be picked by legal experts, not by the voters who have no real basis on which to choose between them.

  • They do not have to ask people for money.  If judges have to raise election funds, it will seem that they are biased in favor of those who give them money.

  • They do not have to think about public opinion when deciding cases.  We don’t want judges thinking “what will be the popular decision” when trying to make decisions based on the law.

Against appointed judges:


  • Appointed judges are undemocratic.  We don’t allow experts to pick presidents and members of Congress so why should we allow them to pick judges.

  • They don’t have to listen to the will of the people.  Officials in a democratic system should have to follow the will of the people, expressed through elections.

  • The appointment process can be corrupt too.  What if the “experts” who select the judges are giving money to the judges.

Please follow the links below for editorials arguing for and against appointed judges.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the meaning of "juggling fiends" in Macbeth?

Macbeth is beginning to realize that the three witches have been deceiving him since he first encountered them. Like jugglers, they have kept changing their forecasts in order create confusion. This is particularly apparent when the Second Apparition they raise in Act IV,   Scene 1 tells him that no man of woman born can overcome him in hand-to-hand battle--and then Macbeth finds himself confronted by the one man he has been avoiding out of a... Macbeth is beginning to realize that the three witches have been deceiving him since he first encountered them. Like jugglers, they have kept changing their forecasts in order create confusion. This is particularly apparent when the Second Apparition they raise in Act IV,   Scene 1 tells him that no man of woman born can overcome him in hand-to-hand battle--and then Macbeth finds himself confronted by the one man he has been avoiding out of a sense of guilt, and that man tells him: Despair thy charm. And let the angel whom thou still hast serve...
Post a Comment
Read more

What are some external and internal conflicts that Montag has in Fahrenheit 451?

 Montag, the protagonist of Fahrenheit 451, faces both external and internal conflicts throughout the novel. Some examples of these conflicts are: External Conflicts: Conflict with the society: Montag lives in a society that prohibits books and critical thinking. He faces opposition from the government and the people who enforce this law. Montag struggles to come to terms with the fact that his society is based on censorship and control. Conflict with his wife: Montag's wife, Mildred, is completely absorbed in the shallow and meaningless entertainment provided by the government. Montag's growing dissatisfaction with his marriage adds to his external conflict. Conflict with the fire captain: Montag's superior, Captain Beatty, is the personification of the oppressive regime that Montag is fighting against. Montag's struggle against Beatty represents his external conflict with the government. Internal Conflicts: Conflict with his own beliefs: Montag, at the beginning of th...
Post a Comment
Read more

In A People's History of the United States, why does Howard Zinn feel that Wilson made a flimsy argument for entering World War I?

"War is the health of the state," the radical writer Randolph Bourne said, in the midst of the First World War. Indeed, as the nations of Europe went to war in 1914, the governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class struggle was stilled, and young men died in frightful numbers on the battlefields-often for a hundred yards of land, a line of trenches. -- Chapter 14, Page 350, A People's History of the United States Howard Zinn outlines his arguments for why World War I was fought in the opening paragraph of Chapter 14 (referenced above). The nationalism that was created by the Great War benefited the elite political and financial leadership of the various countries involved. Socialism, which was gaining momentum in Europe, as was class struggle, took a backseat to mobilizing for war. Zinn believes that World War I was fought for the gain of the industrial capitalists of Europe in a competition for capital and resources. He states that humanity itself was punished by t...
Post a Comment
Read more