should judges be appointed or elected
“Putting courts into politics, and compelling judges to become politicians, in many jurisdictions has almost destroyed the traditional respect for the bench,” a commentator famously wrote, in 1906. For most of the century since that time lawyers, judges, law professors, and other court reformers have wrestled with the problem on how to select judges. ... Judges are given an immense power in this country; therefore justice must be administered impartially. The critics for the election system often argue that the system of appointed judges is undemocratic because such judges are not accountable to the will of majority. Such critics believe that a system of elected judges produces a judiciary that is more democratic. Supporters of the appointment system believe that elected judges often ignore legal principles to decide cases in a manner that will increase their chances for reelection, or that they decide cases in favor of special interests that have contributed money to their campaigns. These critics argue that appointed judges, free from the pressures of campaigns and elections are more likely to render principled decisions. But what is the proper blend of political influences and who or what group should exercise the political power to select judges? ... The Pennsylvanian Constitution states that judges should be elected and serves ten year terms after which a “yes or no” vote is held during the election to retain them.