Should judges be APPOINTED or ELECTED?
I’ve lived in areas of the USA where they are only appointed by their peers, and I’ve lived in areas where they are elected.
I have mixed feelings on this, because if a judge is elected, then s/he is being chosen by those who are probably not competent enough to decide, based on their professional qualifications. But, if s/he is appointed by his/her peers, then allegations of “cronyism” could surface.
So, what’s the ideal solution?
I’d propose that judges be placed on the ballot by their peers (via a “nomination process,”) then the actual election could “validate” those nominations.
Agree? Disagree? Your thoughts?
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.