Amazon.com Widgets

Election of judges: Do elected judiciaries better uphold checks and balances?

  • Elected justices do better uphold checks and balances.

    Elected justices do better uphold checks and balances. When the people go to the polls and elect the people who have the potential to try them for a crime, they feel like their trust has been placed in them and that they would not wrong them and therefore get too powerful.

  • Corruption is prevalent

    Judges are elected by political parties or their members and are members themselves. It swings their decisions in favor of their party's beliefs and takes away the integrity of the balance system. If everything was balanced, then there would be no parties to influence decisions and it would be based on the set and understood principals of the general community

  • Corruption is prevalent

    Judges are elected by political parties or their members and are members themselves. It swings their decisions in favor of their party's beliefs and takes away the integrity of the balance system. If everything was balanced, then there would be no parties to influence decisions and it would be based on the set and understood principals of the general community

  • No, when every branch is elected there are insufficient checks.

    No, elected judiciaries do not better uphold checks and balances than appointed judges, because when judges are elected, they are too beholden to the public to make wise decisions. Judges often have to make unpopular decisions, and they cannot do this well if they are concerned about reelected. With that said, it is very important to be careful when appointing judges, because they have a great deal of power. It is very important that a judge is wise.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.