Debatepedia partners with The People Speak Global Debates and the The National Debate Series: Boston (Nov. 10)
Debate Digest Nov 19th: Medical marijuana. Next Debate Digest article: Trying 9/11 terror suspects in NYC courts
Debate: Election of judges
From Debatepedia
(List of links)
< Debate: Election of judgesThe following pages link to Debate: Election of judges:
View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).- Past Debate Digest topics
- Past featured editors
- Past Editorial Notes and Tasks
- Debate:Judges, Election of (redirect page)
- Argument: Voters will ensure elected judges uphold the rule of law
- Argument: Elected justices are corruptly influenced by campaign funders
- Argument: Political style will replace merit with election of judges
- Argument: Voters don't have enough info to pick the best judges
- Argument: Lawyers often fund judges that they later argue in front of
- Argument: Elections pressure judges to craft positions to win votes
- Argument: Judicial elections are known to produce inferior judiciaries
- Argument: Elected judges are more in tune with public opinion
- Argument: Elections make judges more democratically accountable
- User:Arpi
- Argument: General statements against the election of judges
- Argument: Donors influence judges' decisions; not issue of common philosophy
- Argument: Rulings of elected judges are weakened by concerns of bias
- Argument: Elections and campaigning distracts judges from responsibilities
- Argument: Judges cannot voice their opinions, so how can voters decide?
- Argument: Elected judges increase the influence of special interests
- Argument: Elected judges wrongly interpret public opinion over the law
- Argument: Appointed judiciaries are more independent to check other branches
- Argument: Elected judges are effectively forced to join political parties
- Argument: Judicial elections elevate debate and awareness of judiciary
- Debatepedia top 25 pro/con articles
