As we know, judges and justices on the national level are appointed to office in order to ensure that they have the qualifications necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of the office. One consequence of this is that these individuals are then immune from the pressures of the general population and can make decisions about cases based on their understanding of the law and the Constitution without any external pressure. Hamilton thought this was a good thing, but the Anti-Federalists did not. They though it led to an elite and detached judiciary (again - Hamilton thought this was the point).
The Texas judiciary is designed to be more responsive to the general population. It is elected to fixed six year terms which guarantees this. But since judges have to run for office, they have to campaign, and since campaigns need money, they rely on contributors to provide those funds. This leads to a problem. Are judges then likely to be swayed by those contributions? Can an elected judge be independent? Can a political contributor - especially a well heeled one - buy justice?
I want you to read up on this controversy and evaluate it. Think about this especially for Texas judges: Is Justice for sale in Texas?
Some links:
- State Judicial Elections.
- The Case for Judicial Appointments.
- Bill Moyers: Justice for Sale.
- Debate: Election of Judges.
- Sandra Day O'Connor: Stop Electing Judges.
