Clause 2 of the United States Constitution outlines the process whereby the President of the United States is entrusted with the responsibility of selecting the Supreme Court Justices: "The President...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States." Because unlike other public servants, Supreme Court Justices serve for life, their appointments need to be considered carefully. The general public cannot be trusted to make decisions this important with proper care and consideration. The most recent election of Donald Trump further proves this to be the case. Even though presidential appointments are problematic in their own way, they still remain the best solution to protect the system of checks and balances.The recent fiasco with the opposition government stymying the President's Supreme Court nominees shows that the procedures whereby the Justices are approved and confirmed needs to be revised. That does not mean the decision should revert to the people. The election of state judges shows exactly how problematic public elections for members of the judiciary can be. As Zeder (2012) points out, 90% of state judges must run for office. Those elections are costly and often sullied by extraneous political issues. With few exceptions, the general public has no idea what a good, professional, experienced...
A judge's peers, however, do know. There is a "good-faith logic" in holding public elections for county and state judges, which does provide a balance of powers given that the Supreme Court is the ultimate court of appeals (Zeder, 2012). If the Supreme Court were publically elected too, that would mean that no member of the judiciary would remain stalwart and independent from the fray and whims of fluctuating public opinion.
The system of checks and balances depends on the Appointment Clause. The people do not directly elect the president. They do directly elect members of Congress. The people indirectly elect the president, who then directly appoints the Justices. In other words, each of the three branches is elected differently. No two of the three branches receives its power or appointment in the same way, a situation that is integral to their power sharing capacities. If the public directly elected the Supreme Court, the members of the Supreme Court would veer closer in the direction of a legislative body, which it is not designed to be. Doing so would undermine the fundamental feature of the Supreme Court, its purpose as the final court to determine the constitutionality of local, state, and federal law. The Supreme Court needs to remain distinct from the other branches of government and not subject to temperamental swings in the electorate. The social norms and values that change more gradually over time are,…
