I think it would be better if judges were rather elected by the people instead of elected for life, for it would allow the people to make a decision of who they felt would be the best judges. While you could make the argument that those who the judges were nominated were by the people who were elected, this would allow the people to have more control in this process.
It would be preferable for judges to be elected based upon a vote by the people. This way, the populous' viewpoint would be taken into consideration. A lifetime term with a great seat of power could either grant judicial experience and better judgment or fulfill dreams of corruption. With the United States' system of checks and balances, it would seem that a lifetime term as a judge would be hypocritical.
I think it is better for judges to be nominated and serve for life. If they were elected by the people they would want to make decisions that would get them re-elected instead of whats right for the case. While it may seem like a bad thing for a judge to be nominated and chosen by the government i think it is actually good. Since they are nominated by the president and voted on by congress, it still represents who the people want. Sometimes it is good for the people to decide things but other times it is better for our representatives who are in tune with our needs to make important decisions because whether we like it of not, they know things that we do not.
i think that judges should be elected. since we supposedly live in a democracy, the people should decide who they want to be making such important decisions. even if judges simply make decisions to get reelected, its what the people want, not what the political parties want, who would most likely be nominating them.
i think that it should stay as is; that judges should be nominated and serve for life. i don't think their really have been any major issues with the way that judges are appointed, so why change it? if the government were to let judges be elected by the people it would be a real injustice. that would make it a popularity contest instead of focusing on the issues at hand. not all supreme court judges have a great public image because of the hard decisions that they have to make on the daily basis. so why fix the way if it isn't broken. if you want a legal system that is based on popularity, then yes you should let the public determine who should be a judge; but if you want a fair and balanced legal system leave the moninating to the president and let them serve their life term as a judge.
Why change what has not brought huge complications upon the democracy so far? I believe that it is best to keep the ideas of nominating the judges and letting them serve for life the way it is. By allowing the judges to understand that they are being nominated encourages the upcoming judges to work harder to prove that they could work for it rather then what the public's view presumes "approvalable or acceptable" defines. Which would have problems if most of the citizens becomes uneducated.As well as the fact that if the decision was left to the people wouldn't that limit the presidents powers even further and with this what would become of the president if his powers decrease more and more throughout time..would he be only an image of a leader?
It should remain the way that it is presently, but serving a lifetime is too long for one person. Maybe every 10 years a new judge should be appointed, but not by the people. A bit of change can't be bad for the american people, and corruption can remain at a minimum (but the judge would also have a good chunk of time to serve.)We don't want judges to be persuaded by running and being voted by people; it isn't the judges job to adhere to the people, it's his/her job to stay loyal to the constitution.
I thnink judges should be elected by WE THE PEOPLE because America is a country for the people and who they feel would be the better judge. Some judges who are nominated are not good and are felt to be incompetent by the people.
I feel that judges should be nominated for life. That way the american people are getting a judge who has been confirmed and is best fit to uphold the law. Also they would have a good understanding of the judicial system, and Law.
I believe judges should be nominated and appointed for life.If the people were to vote for the judges, they would probably vote for someone who would benefit them in case they were ever in a court situation. Nomination is best, because it show that this person has all of the qualities to take this position. I beleieve that would best interest everyone.
I believe judges should be nominated and serve for life. If judges were elected, the people with the most campaign funding (rich dudes) would get elected. The general populous has no idea how well a judge has served and are too lazy to look up every single decision he/she has made in court. We should leave it to the president and senators we have elected to find and nominate a "worthy" judge.
I think judges should be elected by the people. When the President chooses judges from their political parties it can lead to biased decisions. I also do not agree with federal judges serving lifetime terms which could lead to an abuse of power.
Just like the President is elected by the people the judges should be too.The Preamble says "We The Peopleof the United States," stating that the government should be for the people by the people to establish justice.
i think that the people should elected and choose the judges. we now live in an era that people have a say in what happens. And it would be wrong for the people not to have a say in who the judges are.
I belive that the judges should be elected by the people , because we elect the president and members of congress and the house . So why dont we just have the president appoint them too . So i belive in this era that " WE THE PEOPLE " of america should elect the supreme court judges of the united states , because the people of the USA should have the right of who will be in the Supreme Court.
I think its better for judges to be appointed for life because if they were constantly worried about their place in the court and being reelected they would base their rulings off of what they think Americans would like, not necessarily what they really believe the truth is. Everything would become a part of campaigning and worrying about their audiences. Also national campaigns are huge. They require A LOT of time and money that could be put to better use. And it would be especially inconvenient for another huge national election to take place so near to after the presidential election, which is usually when the the nominating takes place. Plus, its safe to assume that if you elect a president then you trust them to make good decisions for your country, like nominating justices.
I believe judges should be nominated to serve for life because they make major decisions and if elected by the people, the people probably don't know who is best for the job. in general, people don't know everything they should about govt. and politics therefore leaving it up to the people to elect the judges would not always work too well. Also, having nominated judges proves that they have plenty of experience and knowledge of the government and with the courts!
I think the judges should be elected so it can show how the citizens feel about those judges' judgments. I also think that the judges should serve for life. It could help the judges to accumulate their experiences, and the judges will make the judgments righteously instead to be partial to someone to keep their jobs.
I believe that judges should be elected by the people. This means the people will feel like they have a judge that really represents them and will provide justice. I do not think judges should have to serve for life. I feel like a judge, that has to serve for life, will begin to get tired of his work and start to make any decisions in court just to get to the next case.
I think that judges should be nominated, because most people are not well informed and so they wouldn't have a very good idea on politics or law and they don't know who would be the best candidate to choose. In addition, I do not think that supreme court justices should have their whole life to rule. They should have a set period of time that they are allowed to rule, to prevent any form of bias.
I feel that the people should directly elect judges. There is no reason why citizens shouldn't be allowed to elect who they think is best for the job. Even though the people elect those who might appoint a judge, why not let the people go ahead and vote. I also think that serving for life is excessive. Although experience is gained through years of trials, I feel that a judge should not be able to serve for more than 20 years. This would be a 20 year term, not broken up to where a re-election would need to occur, so as to avoid corruption. Chyea.
i believe that it direct election is the preferable system for selecting our judges. i believe this primarily due to the fact that the power to nominate judges gives the president a larger hand in our government. and even though this power is supposed to be checked by congress being required to be approve of the judges it could be proved to be a faulty system. because such as we have today the president and the majority of congress could be of the same political party thus the congress would be more inclined to pass the presidents nomination
Allowing the judges to be nominated and serve for life makes for a more consistent court. However, this system could also allow for corruption in the courts. The courts my be in the best interest of the people to change their judge at time intervals to allow for more appropriate change in thought and reason in the US court.
I think it should stay as it is, that is, the judges should be nominated and serve for life. Serving for life would make the American legal system more stable. And because appointing a judge needs president's nomination and a majority vote in the Senate, the judge is taken into consideration for the best of the country. Also, the judge can be removed by conviction of impeachment, so I believe that it would not allow corruption in the Supreme Court. Through the history we can see that, by executing the separation of power and checks and balances, we now have a stable federal government as well as the justice that the founders established. There's no need to change it.
I think the judges should be nominated and serve for life. I think this because judges that are elected by the people feel that they should do what they belive the people think is right, instead of what is actually right and what is actually justice. The judges are nominated/picked by the president and Congress, so therefore it must mean that they are well-qualified to do the job of a judge.
I think it would be best to leave the judicial system the way it is by being nominitated by the President and approved by the Senate in order to serve for life. This way, the judges are picked based on their knowledge of the judicial system and close screenings to make sure they are fit for the job. This eliminates judges being picked based on the views of the people and those judges trying to live up to the standards of the people by being biased.
To control the biases that people have I think it is better for the judges to serve life terms. The judges should be appointed because most citizens do no know the necessary information to make a decision on who should be a judge. Also, the process the judges go through when appointed deems if they are justifiable in making tough call on court cases. Plus, as a judge they do not have to worry about making a wrong decision, and not being re-elected.
I think that judges should be nominated and serve for life. Having a life in office ensures that once there they won't be persuaded to change their rulings in order to get elected again for their next term. This is a process of our government that should stray as far from politics as possible in order to have an impartial, unbiased judicial system. Also, I don't think that today's society as a whole would be well-informed enough to make a good decision on which judge would be able to serve the best.
31 comments:
I think it would be better if judges were rather elected by the people instead of elected for life, for it would allow the people to make a decision of who they felt would be the best judges. While you could make the argument that those who the judges were nominated were by the people who were elected, this would allow the people to have more control in this process.
It would be preferable for judges to be elected based upon a vote by the people. This way, the populous' viewpoint would be taken into consideration. A lifetime term with a great seat of power could either grant judicial experience and better judgment or fulfill dreams of corruption. With the United States' system of checks and balances, it would seem that a lifetime term as a judge would be hypocritical.
I think it is better for judges to be nominated and serve for life. If they were elected by the people they would want to make decisions that would get them re-elected instead of whats right for the case. While it may seem like a bad thing for a judge to be nominated and chosen by the government i think it is actually good. Since they are nominated by the president and voted on by congress, it still represents who the people want. Sometimes it is good for the people to decide things but other times it is better for our representatives who are in tune with our needs to make important decisions because whether we like it of not, they know things that we do not.
i think that judges should be elected. since we supposedly live in a democracy, the people should decide who they want to be making such important decisions. even if judges simply make decisions to get reelected, its what the people want, not what the political parties want, who would most likely be nominating them.
i think that it should stay as is; that judges should be nominated and serve for life. i don't think their really have been any major issues with the way that judges are appointed, so why change it? if the government were to let judges be elected by the people it would be a real injustice. that would make it a popularity contest instead of focusing on the issues at hand. not all supreme court judges have a great public image because of the hard decisions that they have to make on the daily basis. so why fix the way if it isn't broken. if you want a legal system that is based on popularity, then yes you should let the public determine who should be a judge; but if you want a fair and balanced legal system leave the moninating to the president and let them serve their life term as a judge.
Why change what has not brought huge complications upon the democracy so far? I believe that it is best to keep the ideas of nominating the judges and letting them serve for life the way it is. By allowing the judges to understand that they are being nominated encourages the upcoming judges to work harder to prove that they could work for it rather then what the public's view presumes "approvalable or acceptable" defines. Which would have problems if most of the citizens becomes uneducated.As well as the fact that if the decision was left to the people wouldn't that limit the presidents powers even further and with this what would become of the president if his powers decrease more and more throughout time..would he be only an image of a leader?
It should remain the way that it is presently, but serving a lifetime is too long for one person. Maybe every 10 years a new judge should be appointed, but not by the people. A bit of change can't be bad for the american people, and corruption can remain at a minimum (but the judge would also have a good chunk of time to serve.)We don't want judges to be persuaded by running and being voted by people; it isn't the judges job to adhere to the people, it's his/her job to stay loyal to the constitution.
maybe 15 years, maximum.
I thnink judges should be elected by WE THE PEOPLE because America is a country for the people and who they feel would be the better judge. Some judges who are nominated are not good and are felt to be incompetent by the people.
I feel that judges should be nominated for life. That way the american people are getting a judge who has been confirmed and is best fit to uphold the law. Also they would have a good understanding of the judicial system, and Law.
I believe judges should be nominated and appointed for life.If the people were to vote for the judges, they would probably vote for someone who would benefit them in case they were ever in a court situation. Nomination is best, because it show that this person has all of the qualities to take this position. I beleieve that would best interest everyone.
I believe judges should be nominated and serve for life. If judges were elected, the people with the most campaign funding (rich dudes) would get elected. The general populous has no idea how well a judge has served and are too lazy to look up every single decision he/she has made in court. We should leave it to the president and senators we have elected to find and nominate a "worthy" judge.
I think judges should be elected by the people. When the President chooses judges from their political parties it can lead to biased decisions. I also do not agree with federal judges serving lifetime terms which could lead to an abuse of power.
Just like the President is elected by the people the judges should be too.The Preamble says "We The Peopleof the United States," stating that the government should be for the people by the people to establish justice.
i think that the people should elected and choose the judges. we now live in an era that people have a say in what happens. And it would be wrong for the people not to have a say in who the judges are.
I belive that the judges should be elected by the people , because we elect the president and members of congress and the house . So why dont we just have the president appoint them too . So i belive in this era that " WE THE PEOPLE " of america should elect the supreme court judges of the united states , because the people of the USA should have the right of who will be in the Supreme Court.
I think its better for judges to be appointed for life because if they were constantly worried about their place in the court and being reelected they would base their rulings off of what they think Americans would like, not necessarily what they really believe the truth is. Everything would become a part of campaigning and worrying about their audiences. Also national campaigns are huge. They require A LOT of time and money that could be put to better use. And it would be especially inconvenient for another huge national election to take place so near to after the presidential election, which is usually when the the nominating takes place. Plus, its safe to assume that if you elect a president then you trust them to make good decisions for your country, like nominating justices.
I believe judges should be nominated to serve for life because they make major decisions and if elected by the people, the people probably don't know who is best for the job. in general, people don't know everything they should about govt. and politics therefore leaving it up to the people to elect the judges would not always work too well. Also, having nominated judges proves that they have plenty of experience and knowledge of the government and with the courts!
I think the judges should be elected so it can show how the citizens feel about those judges' judgments. I also think that the judges should serve for life. It could help the judges to accumulate their experiences, and the judges will make the judgments righteously instead to be partial to someone to keep their jobs.
I believe that judges should be elected by the people. This means the people will feel like they have a judge that really represents them and will provide justice. I do not think judges should have to serve for life. I feel like a judge, that has to serve for life, will begin to get tired of his work and start to make any decisions in court just to get to the next case.
I think that judges should be nominated, because most people are not well informed and so they wouldn't have a very good idea on politics or law and they don't know who would be the best candidate to choose. In addition, I do not think that supreme court justices should have their whole life to rule. They should have a set period of time that they are allowed to rule, to prevent any form of bias.
I feel that the people should directly elect judges. There is no reason why citizens shouldn't be allowed to elect who they think is best for the job. Even though the people elect those who might appoint a judge, why not let the people go ahead and vote. I also think that serving for life is excessive. Although experience is gained through years of trials, I feel that a judge should not be able to serve for more than 20 years. This would be a 20 year term, not broken up to where a re-election would need to occur, so as to avoid corruption. Chyea.
i believe that it direct election is the preferable system for selecting our judges. i believe this primarily due to the fact that the power to nominate judges gives the president a larger hand in our government. and even though this power is supposed to be checked by congress being required to be approve of the judges it could be proved to be a faulty system. because such as we have today the president and the majority of congress could be of the same political party thus the congress would be more inclined to pass the presidents nomination
Allowing the judges to be nominated and serve for life makes for a more consistent court. However, this system could also allow for corruption in the courts. The courts my be in the best interest of the people to change their judge at time intervals to allow for more appropriate change in thought and reason in the US court.
I think it should stay as it is, that is, the judges should be nominated and serve for life. Serving for life would make the American legal system more stable. And because appointing a judge needs president's nomination and a majority vote in the Senate, the judge is taken into consideration for the best of the country. Also, the judge can be removed by conviction of impeachment, so I believe that it would not allow corruption in the Supreme Court. Through the history we can see that, by executing the separation of power and checks and balances, we now have a stable federal government as well as the justice that the founders established. There's no need to change it.
I think the judges should be nominated and serve for life. I think this because judges that are elected by the people feel that they should do what they belive the people think is right, instead of what is actually right and what is actually justice. The judges are nominated/picked by the president and Congress, so therefore it must mean that they are well-qualified to do the job of a judge.
I think it would be best to leave the judicial system the way it is by being nominitated by the President and approved by the Senate in order to serve for life. This way, the judges are picked based on their knowledge of the judicial system and close screenings to make sure they are fit for the job. This eliminates judges being picked based on the views of the people and those judges trying to live up to the standards of the people by being biased.
To control the biases that people have I think it is better for the judges to serve life terms. The judges should be appointed because most citizens do no know the necessary information to make a decision on who should be a judge. Also, the process the judges go through when appointed deems if they are justifiable in making tough call on court cases. Plus, as a judge they do not have to worry about making a wrong decision, and not being re-elected.
I think that judges should be nominated and serve for life. Having a life in office ensures that once there they won't be persuaded to change their rulings in order to get elected again for their next term. This is a process of our government that should stray as far from politics as possible in order to have an impartial, unbiased judicial system. Also, I don't think that today's society as a whole would be well-informed enough to make a good decision on which judge would be able to serve the best.
Post a Comment