In a recent unit of the course, we examined the role of judges in the justice system. One of the things we focused on was the way judges are selected. Since our justice system relies heavily on an adversarial model in which opposing parties advocate for their position and attempt to discredit the other side, judges are thought to play the important role of impartial referee. This assumes that the judge has no interest in the outcome of the case or is capable of setting aside any personal views they may have on the issue being litigated. Consider the following questions:
1) Focusing first on the selection methods for state judges, which of the methods discussed do you feel has the most potential to select judges who are free of bias and will rule fairly in cases before them? Is anyone method more free of politics than the others? Provide support for your answer.
2) Focusing next on the selection of federal judges, is this method any better at removing the influence of politics from the judiciary? Why or why not?
3) In recent months there has been a concern over the “ideological composition” of the U.S. Supreme Court. This has led to calls to increase the size of the court, ostensibly to make it less subject to politics and more representative. What are your thoughts on this? Would increasing the size of the Court accomplish either of those goals? Why or why not? If not, what do you think is really behind this proposal?
