Abstract
In this paper I will be arguing whether or not judges are political. I will utilize the methods of judge selection, term limitations, and human nature to defend my argument. I also plan to argue that judges should remain political.
In 1789, Article III of the United States Constitution established the Judicial Branch of government. The article designed and christened the Supreme Court as defender of our nation’s most supreme law. Congress received the power to create the federal judiciaries, and states’ were left to invent their own judicial systems, mostly mirroring the federal judiciary and their state counterparts. Judges were nominated and appointed, or elected as guardians of the law; their decisions would add clarity, consistency, and meaning for American citizens. However, a continuing question has …show more content…
People hold on to the myth of an impartial judge and place their faith in a system designed to uphold truth, law, and justice. As convoluted as the entire process is, which I outlined above, in my opinion there is not a better option. People are ultimately human free-thinking beings incapable of being entirely void of positions, ideas, and feelings. It is nearly impossible to completely separate one’s view on a point of law. A judge is destined to feel what they feel and be driven to push an issue. It is a decision made almost unconsciously, because a judge who is an originalist thinks he is interpreting correctly, while a judge who uses a non-originalist interpretation thinks he is interpreting correctly. Judges act similar to politicians in the ways that some are put in office, and their interpretation of the law. Judges believe that they are serving the greater good when they decide on particular issues. Judges may not explicitly write laws like the legislature and President, but they definitely shape public policy, and create new definitive standards that are hard to
In this paper I will be arguing whether or not judges are political. I will utilize the methods of judge selection, term limitations, and human nature to defend my argument. I also plan to argue that judges should remain political.
In 1789, Article III of the United States Constitution established the Judicial Branch of government. The article designed and christened the Supreme Court as defender of our nation’s most supreme law. Congress received the power to create the federal judiciaries, and states’ were left to invent their own judicial systems, mostly mirroring the federal judiciary and their state counterparts. Judges were nominated and appointed, or elected as guardians of the law; their decisions would add clarity, consistency, and meaning for American citizens. However, a continuing question has …show more content…
People hold on to the myth of an impartial judge and place their faith in a system designed to uphold truth, law, and justice. As convoluted as the entire process is, which I outlined above, in my opinion there is not a better option. People are ultimately human free-thinking beings incapable of being entirely void of positions, ideas, and feelings. It is nearly impossible to completely separate one’s view on a point of law. A judge is destined to feel what they feel and be driven to push an issue. It is a decision made almost unconsciously, because a judge who is an originalist thinks he is interpreting correctly, while a judge who uses a non-originalist interpretation thinks he is interpreting correctly. Judges act similar to politicians in the ways that some are put in office, and their interpretation of the law. Judges believe that they are serving the greater good when they decide on particular issues. Judges may not explicitly write laws like the legislature and President, but they definitely shape public policy, and create new definitive standards that are hard to