This is a discussion post reply to this below with a 150-200 rebuttal/submission. Your response should be more than just “I agree/disagree”. Challenge the person’s claim with facts and/or an informed opinion.
The judicial branch is one of America’s cores within the government as they decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve other disputes about federal laws(1). The legislative and executive branches both allow ordinary citizens to choose high-ranking public officials and to hold these officials accountable for their actions(2). However with the judicial branch, justices are voted into their positions within the court by the Senate. This shows a divide with representation within the system of government in the United States. Despite having a lack of representation, having an unelected judiciary is indeed beneficial to a representative government.
By having elections for the justices in the judicial branch, it could create problems with those who are selected. Elected judiciaries could create bias within court cases, follow what the people tell them to do, be corrupt with their power, etc. When laws must be enforced, unbiased judges are needed to determine guilt or innocence and – if the accused is found guilty – the appropriate punishment(3). With these potential problems to having elected justices, it would most certainly put the current justice system and the government overall into chaos. Having the Senate choose who they believe is fit for the role of a justice within the courts, it shows no bias and allows for the right people to follow the laws set within the country.
Federal judges are very important within the judicial branch of America’s government as they serve in the courts throughout the nation. These judges are found to “hold their office during good behavior”(4), as stated by Article III in the Constitution. It is argued by some people however that these judges shouldn’t be serving such a long time as it can cause them to lose touch with how they live their life, how the job affects both physical and mental health, distance themselves from the people in America’s society, etc., but they should not have their terms limited due to the problems it can cause. The reasoning for this lifetime role was so that it would remove them from politics and to ensure that they would view only the legal merits of a case and not make decisions with an eye toward re-election or re-appointment(5). Having a limit to terms would prevent these problems from occurring and would keep balance in the court systems. America’s current ways of how the justice system works allows judiciaries to follow the law and stay by what was set down in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is one of the most important parts of the judicial branch as they take care of cases that usually affect the entirety of America and is the last federal court one can go to for their case. Nonetheless, the amount of justices that serve in the supreme court has been nine since 1868. It has been argued that this number shouldn’t be so low as the Constitution doesn’t limit the amount of justices that can, and that it would be beneficial to have more since the presence of only nine justices might constrain the number of cases the Court hears(6). Yet, this can cause some issues within the court itself. By adding more justices, it could cause politics to interfere within the courts, as justices have historically decided cases according to their own beliefs about the law and the case at hand, not because of any sense of obligation to the politics of the president responsible for their appointment to the court(7). Having more could also cause a split between the both Republicans and Democrats’ beliefs, which would prevent the Supreme Court from having their own independence and their ability to follow the laws of the United States
