Why are Judges appointed by public elections?

27 comments

1. Its pretty rare for state level SC~~OTUS~~ to be publicly elected.

   Most are appointed by some form of politicians or another. Though some may face retention votes periodically.

   In the federal government, all of the judges are appointed by POTUS and confirmed by the US Senate. There are no elections, and the only way to get a judge out is by impeachment.

   And let’s drop the facade that justices don’t have their own biases and aren’t impacted by their education, their upbringing and so on. They’re also mostly appointed by politicians who of course also have their own biases.

   Local judges do tend to be elected, sometimes in a non-partisan election, sometimes not. Its just what has happened and in a lot of cases, there’s no liberal or conservative way to handle traffic court.

2. It is a measure against corruption. Electing judges based on partisanship is bad, sure. But worse is when the government which was elected on even more partisan measures puts in a judge who is not accountable to the people, but only to the person appointing them. This leads to cronyism, which is arguably worse, as seen by SCOTUS as you mentioned. Lifetime appointments there reduce the need for judges to pony up to the public on an annual basis in theory to protect their impartiality, but their actual appointment is basically all the politics without the public having a say.

3. Federal judges are appointed, not elected.

   At the state level, some states have Judicial elections, some states have judges appointed and after a certain amount of time they have a retention election. Other states don’t have judicial elections at all, and have all their judges appointed like the federal system. I certainly have never voted for a judge, and I don’t ever want to.

4. If there is one thing left and right can agree on, it is that “objective judges” = “judges who do things I like”.

5. I’m reluctantly pro electing state level judges, especially in states like Wisconsin where the legislature is completely detached from the will of the voters.

   Partisanship is just human nature. Publicly campaigning on your beliefs is better than beating about the bush in a confirmation hearing imo.

6. I don’t think judges should be allowed to be openly partisan, but it’s much better they be elected than appointed.

7. There is no good alternative. Electing judges is even more partisan.

8. It’s a measure against corruption.

9. Judges are politicians wearing robes. Nothing more, Nothing less.

10. 1) Judges are elected in some circumstances. Judges are appointed in others. But nobody is appointed by election – you’re either elected or you’re appointed.

    2) An election is more an instrument of the will of the people, and they can be voted out later.

    3) Appointments are more an instrument of political agendas as the party in power appoints others. Appointments are also usually for life, so once in, you’re stuck with them until they die or retire.

    I’ll take an elected judge over an appointed judge any day of the week.

11. We prefer democratic processes to politicians appointing their buddies to things.

    Truth be told, I think too many Texas officials are elected. The public simply cannot have an informed opinion about so many candidates. But our tradition is democracy wherever possible.

12. There are many different systems in the U.S. for judges to reach the bench. When it’s done by vote, it’s because putting that power in the hands of a single person, like a governor, risks corruption. Judgeships have been sold through such appointments to the highest bidder.

    My state has a hybrid system. The governor appoints judges and appellate justices. But then they’re subject to public election once every so many years. Trial judges almost always run without opposition in those elections – you have to be part of the state bar to run, and most qualified lawyers make more money than they would as judges, so it’s not exactly a job people are clamoring for.

13. Because when they were appointed by politicians it was part of a prize system where a politician’s rich donors would be given positions based on how much they donated.

    I much prefer career judges over whichever board member of the Kohler Corporation(the company that makes plumbing fixtures, based in Wisconsin) or worse whichever toady of the Koch brothers wants to be a Justice.

    Beside the system worked, the Republican who had been caught taking bribes lost.

14. Because states dictate how they run their bureaucracy and legal system unless explicitly forbidden by the constitution. Wisconsin chooses judges via public elections because that’s how they choose to do it.

15. Well, you kinda see it in your post text. “liberal” and “conservative” are not parties, they are political belief systems. Democrats may _like_ liberals and republicans may _like_ conservatives, but _being_ liberal or conservative in thought doesn’t not mean party affiliation.

16. With apologies to Aristotle: Bodies made up of human beings are political bodies, no matter how they came into being.

17. A) Because the guys who wrote those laws put something in that let’s them control another part of our government. Why wouldn’t they? It’d be like asking a criminal to be his own prosecutor and expecting a fair trial.

    and B) Someone’s gotta pick them. It’s either that or some entity either already politicized or beholden to no public responsibility. Both options still result in the same problems.

    All other forms of being put into power end up politicizing the court in some way; there is no way around it. Public elections simply minimize individual power (something a democracy is built around) and allow for more representative appointments where no singular person can override the system. It’s the best way to stay as neutral as possible in the eyes of most people. Not really neutral but as close as one can reasonably expect.

18. To be blunt, elected and appointed really are inconsequential now.

    The real difference is the limits. An appointee can hold the job for life while an elected judge needs to answer to the voters every certain number of years.

    The reality is, judges are in fact politicians just with an illusion that we pretend they are not and everyone is supposed to cooperate with this illusion.

19. Well it is the oddity that is the judicial role they are a branch of government so on some level they should answer to the people but you also want them to be fair and independent so that raises questions on how can you make them accountable without influencing them. For certain courts the law makers decided being accountable to the people was important enough for them to be elected despite the risk of making them politically motivated. Now what is the right balance for judges accountability is up to you.

20. This is why I think as an American that I want to make our judges elected by a third non funded party or just elected by a group committee of unbiased judges

21. It’s not a secret what a judge’s philosophy is when they make decisions. They may not openly identify as liberal or conservative — much less Democratic or Republican — but their leanings are clear based on previous decisions.

    As for conservatives being angry, they’re going to have to get used to it. This has become a pattern ever since *Roe* was overturned. If you look at a county-by-county map, the “liberal” made substantial inroads in rural Wisconsin and nearly carried Ozaukee County. Ozaukee is the “O” in Wisconsin’s large suburban “WOW” counties (Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Washington), which have long been bastions of Republican votes.

    I find this interesting because an off-year judge election is naturally going to be more about the issues than a high-stakes governor or federal election (e.g., senator, president), which have lately seen culture wars take an outsized role. It seems really clear why some people are really pushing the culture wars.

    Anyway, just FYI: “SCOTUS” stands for “***S***upreme ***C***ourt ***o***f ***t***he ***U***nited ***S***tates.” It’s not a shorthand term for just any Supreme Court.

22. Judges have always represented a political ideology, even in the cases where they are appointed.

23. I feel like it would be more appropriate to have only lawyers able to vote to elect judges. Even in federal court. The public doesn’t know shit about law or legal process. The legislators write law (often very poorly). But it seems like the only way to get judges into office by merit and trust is to have the people who know what the fuck they’re doing voting for judges.

    Also, if you are a judge, you are not allowed to vote. Only practicing lawyers.

24. Federal judges are appointed and only some states directly elect judges. In Some states its appointed and then they are subject to rentention votes.

    The reason you have cases like Wisconsin is because states run their own elections. They get to decide how they want to run their government as long its a republic.

25. I can’t speak for other states, but as a Texan, I’ll tell you the same thing I tell my friend from Massachusetts: Texas is very big; electing judges is just the simpler solution.

    Texas has 254 counties. Each county has **at least** one district court judge (mine has 12!). Plus you have 14 Courts of Appeal with a total of 80 justices, plus the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals with 8 members and the SCOTX with 9.

    A **low-end** estimate based on that info is 600 judges. Instead of opening a new state agency just to deal with overseeing over 600 judges and their courts, Texas has the citizens handle the issue.

26. Others have commented on which judges are and are not elected, but the tl;dr is if they aren’t elected, they’re appointed. A lot of places see elections as the fairer method of getting a judge into a certain seat, because the alternative is that a specific person or group will appoint a judge, which can lead to sketchy backroom deals.

27. Your edit is incorrect as the 6 conservative justices all stated in their Senate confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade was settled law. Therefore they did not “openly support liberal/conservative agendas”.