Should Supreme Court Justices be appointed or elected?

hey there (((fromafar))), you would probably expect me to say "elected" (i expected me to say 'elected', leaning to the left in a pisa-like way as i tend to do, lol!) but in my honest opinion, i think it should be by appointment (just not under the current modus operandi).

in my ideal world, the decision would not be taken by the president or the senate; the panel in charge of the decision would consist of the best minds selected from a wide variety of fields and adequately represent the society they serve.

edit: i suspect you might ask me who gets to decide who exactly the best minds are and what the criteria might be... i'm working on that :) what i can tell you right off the bat, is that my dream 'justice' panel would have the dalai lama and sam harris on it, as well as many others.

2nd edit: so true, elections are indeed no guarantee of anything, they are as subject to corruption and the machiavellian machinations of those in power as any other system, besides, even in a fairly stable democracy, we, the people, cannot be guaranteed to make a sensible choice (see the bush administration, for prime example) as a large majority are, it seems, easy prey to manipulation via the mainstream media.

things will seem odd when we are talking about antiquated systems which may have been adequate and fit for purpose when initially set up but which are in serious need of reform in present circumstances, i feel that way about any 'appointment' which allows what is essentially a public servant to remain in post for life (or more absurd, a post which is acquired by virtue of inheritance) and, yes, i am right now thinking of the house of lords in the uk.

by the way, i am not well-versed in the american judicial system, what qualifies a person to become supreme court justice? i'm gonna go google :)

the important question is how do we go about finding the ethically wise?

ok, one last thing, because i've already taken up a lot of space, lol! it seems that those much smarter than me have very different ideas:

"They think the way you solve things is by electing the right people. It’s nice to elect the right people, but that isn’t how you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing." -Milton Friedman

By the doctrine of 'separation of powers' --- appointed not elected.

Under a true democracy, with all the necessary checks and balances, the executive and legislative should not influence the judiciary. Only then can the latter be seen to protect the peoples' interests.

---

Hi there

The UK has a judicial appointments commission that prepares a shortlist and selects the best judges according to a set of criteria and standards. Australian judges are selected by politicians, given tenure, and can only be removed for serious misbehaviour by the Queen's representative - which does make it a political appointment. Judges shouldn't be choosing their own peers either, of course. So the UK's model of a commission could be the best compromise. The government would select the appointee, the commission shouldn't include only lawyers, who should not have a monopoly on who runs our courts, and the method of selection should reflect that judges serve the community at large.

The appropriate courtroom could be criticized for being a sprint in the back of the curve of public opinion, and that's in all probability the end results of no longer being straight away conscious of political pressures. most of the justices are continually appointed by potential of the final president, or those earlier that. each so often the courtroom is extra conservative than known opinion, and each so often the courtroom is extra liberal. Roosevelt replace into annoyed with the perfect courtroom because of the fact it replace into so conservative, and Reagan replace into annoyed with the courtroom because of the fact it replace into extra liberal than he could have enjoyed. So the courtroom is usually a sprint in the back of the situations. yet it is many times a sturdy element. For the main area, the opportunity of appointing judges has worked exceedingly plenty. If it is not broke, why attempt to restoration it. Making appropriate courtroom justices run for place of work might desire to bring about lots of of problems.

Definitely elected by the "people".