Another thread here has me curious about this, so I thought I'd break it out on its' own. Should judges be appointed or elected?
I lean towards elected, as they would be subject to the will of the people periodically, as opposed to lifetime appointments where impeachment is the principle vehicle by which they can be removed. Here in Mass. judges are appointed, and there's been some noteworthy cases in the past few years where bad guys have been let off with disastrous results, judges have been legislating from the bench, intimidating and coercing settlements on their personal matters, etc. The flip side of the elected approach could have us end up with the bench dominated by popular, as opposed to qualified/skilled, individuals. I guess that could be said of appointees also.
Thoughts?
I lean towards elected, as they would be subject to the will of the people periodically, as opposed to lifetime appointments where impeachment is the principle vehicle by which they can be removed. Here in Mass. judges are appointed, and there's been some noteworthy cases in the past few years where bad guys have been let off with disastrous results, judges have been legislating from the bench, intimidating and coercing settlements on their personal matters, etc. The flip side of the elected approach could have us end up with the bench dominated by popular, as opposed to qualified/skilled, individuals. I guess that could be said of appointees also.
Thoughts?