Appointing Vs. Electing Judges

Cynicism as stated on PBS television station on their special titled Justice For

Sale is one who knows price of everything but value of nothing is what they used to

describe the actions of many judges in todays time. Federal judges compared to

Texas judges are appointed by the president with confirmation from the senate.

Voters elect Texas judges. Although much controversy surrounds the topic of

appointing versus electing judges each method has its own advantages and

disadvantages.

An advantage to appointing judges is that candidates will be selected based

on their backgrounds and experiences they have which will benefit each ruling if it

is made fair and unbiased. Appointed judges are selected not based on their party

affiliation but on their ability to make fair and just judgments which to me seems

like and advantage because I believe all government should be fair to all. On the

contrary a disadvantage to appointing judges as stated on the PBS special Justice For

Sale some judges take on contributions by large companies or individuals that might

seem like a contribution to the judge, actually turns into as some would say a favor. I

believe money should have no part in politics because it makes the candidate biased,

which defies the whole system of appointing judges as unbiased and ruling for what

is right. A disadvantage to appointing judges is that sometimes of those appointed

are appointed based on trying to get the vote to sway one way more than another.

An advantage to electing judges based on the voters is that the voice of the

people is heard and in my view that is what most Texans want is to be heard and

their issues resolved. The advantage to electing judges is that since they are elected