ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY

TOPIC: Should supreme court justices be elected ?

Introductory Paragraph
The Supreme Court are the highest federal court in the country and the head of the judicial branch of
government. Established by the country Constitution, the Supreme Court has the ultimate jurisdiction
over all laws within the country and is responsible for evaluating the constitutionality of those laws. If
necessary, the court, which is currently made up of nine justices, has the power to check the actions of
the other two branches of government—the executive branch of the president me and the legislative
branch of Congress.The Supreme Court’s justices are nominated by the President of the country and
confirmed (or denied) by the Senate.Judicial elections for anything more serious than small claims or
traffic court are a terrible idea, and introducing them for Supreme Court justices would do great damage
to rule of law in the United States.The concept of the judicial branch devised by the Founding Fathers
was a good one: let elected representatives (the president, with confirmation by the Senate) select
quality judges, and then let those judges do their jobs without interference so long as they conduct
themselves honestly

The Thesis Statement

Justices should not be elected because Judicial elections for anything more serious than small claims or
traffic court are a terrible idea, and introducing them for Supreme Court justices would do great damage
to rule of law in the country.

Body Paragraphs
Supporter Paragraph 1
Judicial elections for anything more serious than small claims or traffic court are a terrible idea.Beyond
the possibility of undue influence, is simply true that judicial elections are low on the radar for most
voters. The problem with electing judges is similar to the problem with electing treasurers or the
problem with electing dogcatchers; with so many elections, voters don’t have the time or knowledge to
evaluate the candidates.

Example:
Elections require cash, and absent full and mandatory public financing, this means fundraising. Even in
the best of circumstances, it’s difficult for a judge to appear impartial when, as a candidate, they relied
on donors and special interests for support. This might not be a huge concern on a high-profile body, like
a state Supreme Court, but it’s undoubtedly a problem among the thousands of lower-court judges
chosen by popular ballot.
Supporter Paragraph 2
An appointed judge is merely one who is elected by a small
numberof personswho would then have leverage over the judge.
the point of elected versus appointed judges is merely

who will have the power over them the people or a select number
of politicians and bar members or the public they serve.

Example:
Clearly, we don't want the state judges becoming a morass of political
shenanigans as found in the federal courts based not on the
law but on their politicalmasters.

Refutation paragraph:

Appointed judges in my experience tend to be better qualified

judges than those who run for the office. However,
nominating committees need to be as non politicalas
possible.

Conclusion:
Judges should be independent and should not have to run for election
. We have a code of ethics and are limited by what we can
and can't say. We can't make promises and can't

prejudge a case, often what those seeking politicaloffice do. Additionally,

who are we most likely to raise money from? The lawyers
who appear before us. Not a good practice.
Running for electiontakes time away from doing what we are
being paid to do - be fair and impartial judges, rule on cases
in a timely manner, and not be swayed by public opinion
- in essence be an independent judiciary.