chAPTeR TweLve • The JudIcIARy 283
supreme court Appointments. As we have mentioned, the president nominates
Supreme Court justices. As you can see in Table 12–1 on the following page, which sum-
marizes the background of all Supreme Court justices to 2014, the most common occu-
pational background of the justices at the time of their appointment has been private
legal practice or state or federal judgeship. Those nine justices who were in federal execu-
tive posts at the time of their appointment held the high offices of secretary of State,
comptroller of the Treasury, secretary of the Navy, postmaster general, secretary of the
Interior, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and secretary of Labor. In
the “Other” category under “Occupational Position before Appointment” in Table 12–1
are two justices who were professors of law (including William H. Taft, a former president)
and one justice who was a North Carolina state employee with responsibility for organiz-
ing and revising the state’s statutes.at issue
The nation’s founders sought to insulate the courts
from popular passions, and as a result, all of the judges
and justices in the federal court system are appointed
by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Federal
judges and justices are appointed for life. In thirty-
nine states, in contrast, some or all state judges must
face election and reelection.
The question of whether state judges should
be elected or whether they should be appointed has
proved to be very divisive. Many in the legal commu-
nity agreed with a former Oregon Supreme Court
justice, Hans A. Linde, when he pointed out that “to
the rest of the world, American adherence to judicial
elections is as incomprehensible as our rejection of the
metric system.” Public opinion polls, however, regu-
larly show strong public support for electing judges.The PeOPLe’s WiLL shOuLd PrevaiL
Those who advocate the election of state judges see
the issue as a simple matter of democracy. Judges can-
not be insulated from politics. Governors who appoint
judges are highly political creatures and are likely
to appoint members of their own party. If politics is
going to play a role, the people ought to have their say
directly. In addition, researchers at the University of
Chicago School of Law found that elected judges write
more opinions than do appointed judges.
We let ordinary people participate in the legal
process through the jury system, and they ought to
be able to choose judges as well. That way, the people
can be confident that judges will respond to popularconcerns, such as the fear of crime. Without elections,
judges living in safe, upscale neighborhoods may fail
to appreciate what it is like to fear for your safety on an
everyday basis.eLeCTiNG JudGes Leads TO COrruPTiON
Former United States Supreme Court justice Sandra
Day O’Connor condemned the practice of elect-
ing judges: “No other nation in the world does that
because they realize you are not going to get fair and
impartial judges that way.” Opponents of judicial elec-
tions observe that most voters do not have enough
information to make sensible choices when they vote
for judicial candidates. Therefore, campaign contribu-
tions wind up deciding judicial races.
Judicial candidates raise considerable funds
from the lawyers who will appear before them if they
win. Additional campaign funds are raised by special
interest groups that want “their” candidate elected or
reelected to the state court in question. People in favor
of electing judges think that the candidates they vote
for will, for example, be “tough on crime.” Often, they
are. But those who oppose judicial elections contend
that elected judges will also tilt toward the wealthy
groups that put them in office, and away from the
interests of ordinary people.FOr CriTiCaL aNaLYsis
Why do you think that attorneys, as a group, contribute more to
judicial campaigns than do members of other professions?shOuLd sTaTe JudGes Be eLeCTed?
9781285436388_12_ch12_271-296.indd 283 10/29/13 11:01 AM
Copyright 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.