Why are federal judges appointed instead of being elected?

Answer 1

Oh, dude, federal judges are appointed instead of being elected because the Founding Fathers were like, "Let's have some experts in law and stuff, not just the popular kids." It's all about that separation of powers and making sure judges aren't swayed by public opinion like a politician trying to win a popularity contest. So yeah, appointed judges bring that extra level of professionalism to the courtroom, you know?

Answer 2

Federal judges are appointed, state and municipal judges are appointed or elected depending upon the venue they serve.

Both methods have faults, such as favoritism at the appointment level, and then, electing judges is rarely a high priority among the general voting public most of whom have limited (if any) knowledge of the individuals running for a judgeship.

Answer 3

The importance of having judges who are appointed rather than elected is making sure the people serving on the bench are qualified and will adhere to written law rather than public opinion. Elections can often favor popularity over capability. Appointments take into consideration the judge's work and qualifications.

Answer 4

The idea is that they are not supposed to be politically affiliated. They are supposed to be nonpartisan interpreters of constitutional law meant to make decisions on the constitutionality of bills that are challenged. They cannot do this if they have to campaign for political support because that would require that they take a partisan stance of some sort to gain an advantage over their challenger. This problem is still not obviously avoided by appointment.

Answer 5

Federal judges are appointed instead of being elected to keep them honest. A judge who is appointed is not going to show favoritism over one person or another. This keeps politics out of the courtroom as far as the judge is concerned.

Answer 6

The Framers feared tyranny from the judiciary more than from the other two branches, so they placed deliberate limitations on the judiciary. As a result, the Federalist Papers reported that under their plan, "the Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakestof the three departments of power. . . . [and] the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter." [2]

As part of that plan, the Framers took care to ensure that judges were accountable to the people at all times. Although federal judges were appointed and did not face election, the Founders made certain that federal judges would be easily removable from office through impeachment, a procedure that today is widely misunderstood and rarely used. While the current belief is that a judge may be removed only for the commission of a criminal offense or the violation of a statutory law, [3] it was not this way at the beginning. As Alexander Hamilton explained, "the practice of impeachments was a bridle" [4] - a way to keep judges accountable to the people.

Answer 7

They either do something bad or they either retirer

Answer 8

they are freer to make decisions, with less outside pressure.

Answer 9

All federal judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They serve life terms and can be removed from office only by the impeachment process.

Answer 10

They are appointed to long terms so that politics will play less of a role in their decision-making.