Should Judges Serve On The Breach?
Politics Opinions
Should judges be elected to serve on the bench?
YES
35%of members
Voice Your Opinion
* I support the idea of electing judges into office because judges should represent the interests of the community being served. If the election of judges is withdrawn as a means to appointment a candidate into office, then judges would serve on the bench for the sake of duty rather than service to the community. Electing officials into office empowers members of the voting community by giving registered voters the opportunity to select a representative who can address the concerns of the citizens. Voters expect judges to be authoritative officials who address legal matters in hopes that communities and lives will be protected from wrongdoing. It …show more content…
is important for judges to be involved in the positive construction of a community. Voting is a fundamental right that should not be taken away.
Posted By: SteepSanto68 * I believe that judges should be chosen to serve on the bench, since they are doing a public service to the citizens of the city or nation.
The citizens are the ones who need protection from the criminals and offenders that walk into a court room. By having the citizens elect judges, there is a better chance that justice will be served appropriately.
Posted By: CrabbyDonn59 * Judges should be elected just like other government officials. Yes, judges should have to be elected to serve on the bench. Much like other government officials, judges are supposed to be representing the population. By having them elected by the majority, this will ensure that the person chosen has the background, experience and personality the people want in a judge.
Posted By: TedieDelight * Yes, because judges are the true voice of the people when enforcing the law. Judges should always be elected, because the decisions they make in court reflect the laws that the average citizen will have to follow.
Posted By: RaynN4t3 * Judges should be elected to serve on the bench. A judge is supposed to be impartial. They are supposed to look at the facts and only the facts. However, with our justice system today already being political I feel that the people should have the ability to choose who will hold this high position. With the appointment process there is always the possibility (and probability) of the old "you scratch my back and I will scratch yours" scenario. I know this goes on all over in politics and if judges had to run a campaign for their seats I am sure there would be more broken promises but I still feel it should be left up to the public to hopefully make a good an honest decision on which candidate would do the best job. After all...the people already choose who will hold the most important positions in this country already.
Posted By: w00tboycomic * Judges should be elected, rather than appointed, to serve on the bench. Judges should be elected, rather than appointed, to serve on the bench. Justice should be served without prejudice and not according to political boundaries. The fact that judges often make decisions that impact the general public and create precedent for interpretation of laws which could also impact the general public for some time into the future, the general public should have some say and control on the judicial branch. Actually voting for judges is one way to exercise this control.
Posted By: SilverMathi * Judges should be elected to the bench so that they are chosen by the people. It is common knowledge (and very provable) that power corrupts. It is unwise to have judges appointed because this leads to unwise choices or unqualified people holding such a position of power. Even better than having judges elected, judges should be able to be removed by elections easily so that any hints of corruption or abuse of authority can be wiped out of the court system.
Posted By: Nik0Interior * Judges should be elected to ensure accountability. Judges decide everything from child custody to death sentences. If a single elected official makes many bad choices in selecting judges, the community suffers from many bad decisions. Elections also serve as an accountability factor for judges who make bad decisions. From the judge who lets a child molester get off on light charges due to a sob story to the suspected corruption that could affect cases for years, the ability to remove judges by period public review (also called elections) ensures that within a year or two of a horrific decision, a judge is off the bench. Elections also force judges to clarify their positions and stick to them. There have been multiple Supreme Court nominees who posed as moderates and then shifted to a political extreme in their decisions. If elected, they could be removed for essentially having lied during their confirmation. Due to the extreme difficulty of impeaching judges, elections are the only certain accountability measure that the public has.
Posted By: Pir4And * Judges should not have a political role, they should if elected
Judges from time to time make decisions on controversial issues which are not in the best interest of the public. In every Democratic society, people are elected and are representative of the people. You have people like judges who are appointed officials and make decision for the public and insert some of their views by interpreting the law in a way the normal public can't understand. If they make mistakes again, they will continue to do so and will never be removed until they retire or otherwise. Judges should be elected to serve on the bench so the public can have a say on matters rather then handful of judges making the decision for millions of people. If the legislative and executive branch is made up of elected members why judges are not elected members. Why judges make decisions in favor and in years later it get over-turned when new appointed officials serve on the bench
Posted By: Anonymous
NO
65%of members
Voice Your Opinion
* Judges should only be accountable to the law Money is the ultimate corrupter. Political favors would further corrupt the system. Also, some voters would vote judges based on ideological considerations. A judge should only consider the law in their decisions, not an ideology or a rich benefactor. I don't want judges pandering to any party, special interest group, economic class, or any group.
Posted By: Anonymous * No, some people don't actually know what judges do and will just vote on the most likeable person, etc... How many of you know what judges do in court? Not everyone will know what judges do. If this is the case, some people could be pressured or bribed into voting for people they have never even heard of.
Posted By: valentinegirlno1
Challenge to a Debate * Judges are represenatives of the Law not contributors! I believe that judges should be appointed and confirmed by our elected officials. This helps judges remain focused on the Law and not supporters. They have to be confirmed by both parties and thus are not beholding to either. Judges should be free to interpret and apply the law without being concerned about political reprecussions.
Posted By: Anonymous * Elections encourage political influence in decisions. While being appointed by a politician does add some political influence to judges, direct elections adds even more. If a judge is elected, then they will need to run an election campaign. An election campaign has to make promises and connections, in order to be successful. This goes against the concept of judges being impartial in their decision-making.
Posted By: KnownEvan * Electing judges makes them just another branch of politicians.
While it's good to have the accountability of elections, judges should not be subject to running campaigns or winning the popular vote. This creates too much overlap with the legislative and executive branches, which are subject to popular vote. Appointing judges allows for a different type of selection process for one branch of government, and generally leads to more qualified candidates.
Posted By: LivingJimmy * I oppose judges being elected to serve, because they should gain the bench based on merit only. Elections often become popularity contests that cost a lot of money. If a judge is not well-known or does not have a lot of money, then they do not have as good of a chance. They might still have a better record and be a better judge, compared to the other person. I think the judge with the best record should be elected, rather than the one with the most money and name recognition.
Posted By: TMacias * Judges are representing THE LAW not the POPULATION Judges are supposed to be unbiased and uphold legal precedent as well as the constitutional values of this nation in law. The people who want judges to be elected are control freaks, usually the kind who can't stand that things like abortion are allowed by our law. Judges create legal precedent and follow that precedent. They represent this nation yes.. but not its people, they represent the legal foundation of everyone.. we may not always like their rulings but the law is the law. Electing judges would only corrupt them.
Posted By: Anonymous * No, having judges elected to serve on the bench would give them too many political ties to remain impartial in their rulings. No elected official remains clean through the election process, and they will always have a few special interest groups to thank for their victory. This means that by electing a judge to office, it would bring into question his ability to be impartial on any case that might affect their political ties. Even a shift in public opinion could affect an elected judge's case if it is a re-election year.
Posted By: H_Baird * I oppose judges being elected to serve on the bench, because the American public isn't educated enough. I believe that the American public is not educated or unbiased enough to choose who our judges are. It's better that they are appointed by someone who is trustworthy, respected, and who fully understands their qualifications and capability. It's proven that people's opinions are easily influenced by ads and campaigns. The court system is created to provide justice and equality, which is better provided with appointed judges.
Posted By: boobop * I disagree with judges being elected to serve on the bench because they would be susceptible to influence. If judges were elected to the bench, they would become no more than politicians, subject to every whim of public opinion, special interest groups and lobbyists. Corruption would run rampant through their ranks as judges were found guilty of taking money from PACs. Political favors would be traded for justice, and the legislative and judicial systems, which should be separate, would become intertwined as one big oozing corrupt sore.
Posted By: C0rtKenka * Judges should not be elected because the position should not be the result of popularity contest. When judges run for election, they have to spend time fund raising and running a campaign. The most successful judges may not be the most popular judges. The positions should be appointed by merit and not left to the whim of the electorate.
Posted By: ReminBooty * I do not think judges should be elected unless we have a much more educated group of voters who could make decisions based on the issues. Although I don't agree with judges being appointed for life, I also don't think that the American public is educated enough to intelligently vote on judges. Our elections have become nothing more than sound bites and candidate appearances, and that certainly isn't what is important when picking a judge. So, let the judges be appointed and screened by the Senate.
Posted By: 54IInferno * It makes more sense for judges to be appointed by people who understand their qualifications. I don't think the average person knows enough about our complicated legal system to understand whether a candidate for judge is qualified or not.
Without understanding the law or the background of each case, people could easily be swayed by negative ads about candidates based on oversimplified statements. A judge's job is to make decisions based on the law as it's written, and sometimes their decisions might not make sense to someone who does not know the details of the law. People who are in charge of appointing judges are more knowledgeable about the law and a potential judge's qualifications.
Posted By: N Schroeder 60 * No, judges should not be elected by popular vote because the average citizen knows nothing about the intricate details of the law. Judges should not be elected to serve on the bench by the citizenry through normal election procedure, because the average citizen knows nothing about the intricacies of the law and the difference between a sound judge and a poor one. Judges should be appointed by a body of their legal peers instead of being elected in a popularity contest by the masses.
Posted By: ThegaXen * I am opposed to allowing judges to be elected to serve on the
bench. Allowing a judge to serve based upon popular election is at best problematic. A judge's attention should be devoted full time to his or her judicial duties, and not diverted by the need to raise funds to stage a political campaign and express an opinion on various legal topics which may come before the particular judge. Further, campaign contributions for election or reelection would traditionally be funded by lawyers; the same lawyers who may appear in front of the particular judge. An election process runs contrary to the fundamental need to have our judges, at all times, independent from any outside influences.
Posted By: AGalloway * Judges should not be elected to serve on the bench because it politicizes criminal and civil law enforcement Judges should not be elected to serve on the bench because it politicizes criminal and civil law enforcement. Most countries have judges appointed so it's based on skill rather than popular opinion. When judges fear re-election campaigns, it influences their rulings and decisions. Judges should be free from such concerns and be able to focus on the trial in front of them.
Posted By: H0bi3Invader * When judges are elected to serve on the bench, all it becomes is a popularity contest. Judges should not be able to serve on the bench if they can do so with no law experience, but are able to sway the voters by a chance election. The U.S. judicial system needs to be held to the highest standards and a popularity contest is no way to achieve that. A panel made up of police, lawyers and serving judges could fill any vacancies that open on the bench.
Should judges be elected to serve on the bench?
YES
35%of members
Voice Your Opinion
* I support the idea of electing judges into office because judges should represent the interests of the community being served. If the election of judges is withdrawn as a means to appointment a candidate into office, then judges would serve on the bench for the sake of duty rather than service to the community. Electing officials into office empowers members of the voting community by giving registered voters the opportunity to select a representative who can address the concerns of the citizens. Voters expect judges to be authoritative officials who address legal matters in hopes that communities and lives will be protected from wrongdoing. It …show more content…
is important for judges to be involved in the positive construction of a community. Voting is a fundamental right that should not be taken away.
Posted By: SteepSanto68 * I believe that judges should be chosen to serve on the bench, since they are doing a public service to the citizens of the city or nation.
The citizens are the ones who need protection from the criminals and offenders that walk into a court room. By having the citizens elect judges, there is a better chance that justice will be served appropriately.
Posted By: CrabbyDonn59 * Judges should be elected just like other government officials. Yes, judges should have to be elected to serve on the bench. Much like other government officials, judges are supposed to be representing the population. By having them elected by the majority, this will ensure that the person chosen has the background, experience and personality the people want in a judge.
Posted By: TedieDelight * Yes, because judges are the true voice of the people when enforcing the law. Judges should always be elected, because the decisions they make in court reflect the laws that the average citizen will have to follow.
Posted By: RaynN4t3 * Judges should be elected to serve on the bench. A judge is supposed to be impartial. They are supposed to look at the facts and only the facts. However, with our justice system today already being political I feel that the people should have the ability to choose who will hold this high position. With the appointment process there is always the possibility (and probability) of the old "you scratch my back and I will scratch yours" scenario. I know this goes on all over in politics and if judges had to run a campaign for their seats I am sure there would be more broken promises but I still feel it should be left up to the public to hopefully make a good an honest decision on which candidate would do the best job. After all...the people already choose who will hold the most important positions in this country already.
Posted By: w00tboycomic * Judges should be elected, rather than appointed, to serve on the bench. Judges should be elected, rather than appointed, to serve on the bench. Justice should be served without prejudice and not according to political boundaries. The fact that judges often make decisions that impact the general public and create precedent for interpretation of laws which could also impact the general public for some time into the future, the general public should have some say and control on the judicial branch. Actually voting for judges is one way to exercise this control.
Posted By: SilverMathi * Judges should be elected to the bench so that they are chosen by the people. It is common knowledge (and very provable) that power corrupts. It is unwise to have judges appointed because this leads to unwise choices or unqualified people holding such a position of power. Even better than having judges elected, judges should be able to be removed by elections easily so that any hints of corruption or abuse of authority can be wiped out of the court system.
Posted By: Nik0Interior * Judges should be elected to ensure accountability. Judges decide everything from child custody to death sentences. If a single elected official makes many bad choices in selecting judges, the community suffers from many bad decisions. Elections also serve as an accountability factor for judges who make bad decisions. From the judge who lets a child molester get off on light charges due to a sob story to the suspected corruption that could affect cases for years, the ability to remove judges by period public review (also called elections) ensures that within a year or two of a horrific decision, a judge is off the bench. Elections also force judges to clarify their positions and stick to them. There have been multiple Supreme Court nominees who posed as moderates and then shifted to a political extreme in their decisions. If elected, they could be removed for essentially having lied during their confirmation. Due to the extreme difficulty of impeaching judges, elections are the only certain accountability measure that the public has.
Posted By: Pir4And * Judges should not have a political role, they should if elected
Judges from time to time make decisions on controversial issues which are not in the best interest of the public. In every Democratic society, people are elected and are representative of the people. You have people like judges who are appointed officials and make decision for the public and insert some of their views by interpreting the law in a way the normal public can't understand. If they make mistakes again, they will continue to do so and will never be removed until they retire or otherwise. Judges should be elected to serve on the bench so the public can have a say on matters rather then handful of judges making the decision for millions of people. If the legislative and executive branch is made up of elected members why judges are not elected members. Why judges make decisions in favor and in years later it get over-turned when new appointed officials serve on the bench
Posted By: Anonymous
NO
65%of members
Voice Your Opinion
* Judges should only be accountable to the law Money is the ultimate corrupter. Political favors would further corrupt the system. Also, some voters would vote judges based on ideological considerations. A judge should only consider the law in their decisions, not an ideology or a rich benefactor. I don't want judges pandering to any party, special interest group, economic class, or any group.
Posted By: Anonymous * No, some people don't actually know what judges do and will just vote on the most likeable person, etc... How many of you know what judges do in court? Not everyone will know what judges do. If this is the case, some people could be pressured or bribed into voting for people they have never even heard of.
Posted By: valentinegirlno1
Challenge to a Debate * Judges are represenatives of the Law not contributors! I believe that judges should be appointed and confirmed by our elected officials. This helps judges remain focused on the Law and not supporters. They have to be confirmed by both parties and thus are not beholding to either. Judges should be free to interpret and apply the law without being concerned about political reprecussions.
Posted By: Anonymous * Elections encourage political influence in decisions. While being appointed by a politician does add some political influence to judges, direct elections adds even more. If a judge is elected, then they will need to run an election campaign. An election campaign has to make promises and connections, in order to be successful. This goes against the concept of judges being impartial in their decision-making.
Posted By: KnownEvan * Electing judges makes them just another branch of politicians.
While it's good to have the accountability of elections, judges should not be subject to running campaigns or winning the popular vote. This creates too much overlap with the legislative and executive branches, which are subject to popular vote. Appointing judges allows for a different type of selection process for one branch of government, and generally leads to more qualified candidates.
Posted By: LivingJimmy * I oppose judges being elected to serve, because they should gain the bench based on merit only. Elections often become popularity contests that cost a lot of money. If a judge is not well-known or does not have a lot of money, then they do not have as good of a chance. They might still have a better record and be a better judge, compared to the other person. I think the judge with the best record should be elected, rather than the one with the most money and name recognition.
Posted By: TMacias * Judges are representing THE LAW not the POPULATION Judges are supposed to be unbiased and uphold legal precedent as well as the constitutional values of this nation in law. The people who want judges to be elected are control freaks, usually the kind who can't stand that things like abortion are allowed by our law. Judges create legal precedent and follow that precedent. They represent this nation yes.. but not its people, they represent the legal foundation of everyone.. we may not always like their rulings but the law is the law. Electing judges would only corrupt them.
Posted By: Anonymous * No, having judges elected to serve on the bench would give them too many political ties to remain impartial in their rulings. No elected official remains clean through the election process, and they will always have a few special interest groups to thank for their victory. This means that by electing a judge to office, it would bring into question his ability to be impartial on any case that might affect their political ties. Even a shift in public opinion could affect an elected judge's case if it is a re-election year.
Posted By: H_Baird * I oppose judges being elected to serve on the bench, because the American public isn't educated enough. I believe that the American public is not educated or unbiased enough to choose who our judges are. It's better that they are appointed by someone who is trustworthy, respected, and who fully understands their qualifications and capability. It's proven that people's opinions are easily influenced by ads and campaigns. The court system is created to provide justice and equality, which is better provided with appointed judges.
Posted By: boobop * I disagree with judges being elected to serve on the bench because they would be susceptible to influence. If judges were elected to the bench, they would become no more than politicians, subject to every whim of public opinion, special interest groups and lobbyists. Corruption would run rampant through their ranks as judges were found guilty of taking money from PACs. Political favors would be traded for justice, and the legislative and judicial systems, which should be separate, would become intertwined as one big oozing corrupt sore.
Posted By: C0rtKenka * Judges should not be elected because the position should not be the result of popularity contest. When judges run for election, they have to spend time fund raising and running a campaign. The most successful judges may not be the most popular judges. The positions should be appointed by merit and not left to the whim of the electorate.
Posted By: ReminBooty * I do not think judges should be elected unless we have a much more educated group of voters who could make decisions based on the issues. Although I don't agree with judges being appointed for life, I also don't think that the American public is educated enough to intelligently vote on judges. Our elections have become nothing more than sound bites and candidate appearances, and that certainly isn't what is important when picking a judge. So, let the judges be appointed and screened by the Senate.
Posted By: 54IInferno * It makes more sense for judges to be appointed by people who understand their qualifications. I don't think the average person knows enough about our complicated legal system to understand whether a candidate for judge is qualified or not.
Without understanding the law or the background of each case, people could easily be swayed by negative ads about candidates based on oversimplified statements. A judge's job is to make decisions based on the law as it's written, and sometimes their decisions might not make sense to someone who does not know the details of the law. People who are in charge of appointing judges are more knowledgeable about the law and a potential judge's qualifications.
Posted By: N Schroeder 60 * No, judges should not be elected by popular vote because the average citizen knows nothing about the intricate details of the law. Judges should not be elected to serve on the bench by the citizenry through normal election procedure, because the average citizen knows nothing about the intricacies of the law and the difference between a sound judge and a poor one. Judges should be appointed by a body of their legal peers instead of being elected in a popularity contest by the masses.
Posted By: ThegaXen * I am opposed to allowing judges to be elected to serve on the
bench. Allowing a judge to serve based upon popular election is at best problematic. A judge's attention should be devoted full time to his or her judicial duties, and not diverted by the need to raise funds to stage a political campaign and express an opinion on various legal topics which may come before the particular judge. Further, campaign contributions for election or reelection would traditionally be funded by lawyers; the same lawyers who may appear in front of the particular judge. An election process runs contrary to the fundamental need to have our judges, at all times, independent from any outside influences.
Posted By: AGalloway * Judges should not be elected to serve on the bench because it politicizes criminal and civil law enforcement Judges should not be elected to serve on the bench because it politicizes criminal and civil law enforcement. Most countries have judges appointed so it's based on skill rather than popular opinion. When judges fear re-election campaigns, it influences their rulings and decisions. Judges should be free from such concerns and be able to focus on the trial in front of them.
Posted By: H0bi3Invader * When judges are elected to serve on the bench, all it becomes is a popularity contest. Judges should not be able to serve on the bench if they can do so with no law experience, but are able to sway the voters by a chance election. The U.S. judicial system needs to be held to the highest standards and a popularity contest is no way to achieve that. A panel made up of police, lawyers and serving judges could fill any vacancies that open on the bench.