Judges in the United States

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Election against appointment
Law and politics
Works cited

Introduction

Judges in any judicial system have a political and a social role to play and this is not an exception in the United States judicial system. The mode of selecting and retaining of judges to their positions is a long-standing debate and this indicates that the role played by judges is central in a country’s political and social welfare.

For this and other reasons, judicial freedom is very important. Judicial freedom is not only important in ensuring that judges make fair and impartial decisions in their rulings but it also ensures that all their decisions are based on facts and laws.

As custodians and interpreters of the law, judges have always remained on the limelight, especially on matters that concerns whether they are subjects of the same law they are supposed to be the custodian. Many countries have embraced the rule of democracy and it has become a basic law.

If judges obey the laws of the country, then the rule of democracy, which advocates for the election of any member holding a position in the office of the state, should not be an exception for them. As a democratic country, it is better for U.S. judges to hold their position through election instead of directly appointment.

Election against appointment

Election of judges is however not the norm and the question of whether judges should be elected has remained a contentious issue due to the nature of their positions (Streb 32). In the United States, judges of the federal court receive appointments as opposed to elections, which is a contrast with most of the states such as California high court judges where they hold elections. ”most states moved from an appointive to an elective system for judges in the mid-nineteenth century” (Gaines and Miller 259).

Various questions are of great interest in the whole process of electing instead of appointing judges. The issue of accountability, democracy, political interference in judicial matters, and legitimacy of the judicial ruling are some of the major questions that are of great concern. However, the bottom line remains that elected judges are better than appointed judges are.

Judges are not only supposed to be interpreters and custodians of law, but they are also supposed to demonstrate the keeping of law by setting good examples. For this reason, the election of judges becomes appropriate since it makes the whole process democratic, and it enhances the accountability of judges. The issue of accountability is, therefore, the main reason why there should be an election of judges. As stated by Streb (34) “the state questioned the appointment process because it limited the accountability of judges to people.”

The main reason therefore for voters electing judges instead of appointment by the governors is because the judges need to be accountable to the people of these states more than the governor is. Again, on this issue, voters do not elect judges due to lack of the capacity by the state governors but it is due to the accountability required.

The issue of transparency has also remained a major concern in the process of selecting judges and for this reason; it is obvious that the election of judges is more transparent than through appointment. To begin with, the election process is competitive and therefore this process easily reveals the nature of the candidates to the voters. Unlike the appointment process, the election process is open to scrutiny by state members and this increases transparency.

The issue of conflict of interest in judicial matters has always remained a point of major concern. If state members elect judges to their positions, then the issue of conflict of interest will be highly minimized. The process of appointment of judges is likely to be corrupt than the election of judges. Due to the lack of transparency in the later cases, corruption may go on unnoticed.

In most cases, the appointment of a judge to a position will depend on their relationship with the appointing officers and not on their competence. In some notorious cases, there are bribes to influence one’s way into the appointment process.

Law and politics

Politics has always had a role to play in judicial matters and this is the reason why judges are inherently political. “Judges are servants of the political process” (Manning 108). This is, however, a contradiction since judges are supposed to ensure equality in justice and they have an obligation to the constitution of the land.

This, however, is not what happens in our judicial system. “The function of law is to keep those who hold power, in power” (Manning 108). This is the real picture of what happens in our American courts and although the path taken by our judicial system is not the best, much need to done to streamline the process.

The fact that our judges are subject to political wave goes a long way in interfering with the law of the land and therefore law too becomes a subject to political interpretation. Manning (109) emphasized on this point by stating that “the political waters in which judges swim affect their conduct and rulings.” Rulings and conduct of judges are what constitutes the interpretation of the law.

Works cited

Gaines, Larry and Miller, Roger. Criminal Justice in Action. Belmont: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print.

Manning, Sherman. From The Palace to Prison: And Back To the Palace? American.New York: Dream Online Books. 2005. Print.

Streb, Matthew. Rethinking American Electoral Democracy and Representation. New York: Taylor &Francis group, 2011. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!

Judges in the United States

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)