The question is then raised: what's the alternative?
Certainly a co-equal judiciary is a good thing (as an arbiter of the Constitutionality of laws and their adherence to fundamental principles of rights,) so we're left asking how members of that judiciary should be selected. I understand the problems with doing so through appointment by the executive, but there are distinct, and some might argue greater, problems with putting such positions up for popular election. Hamilton's concerns in Federalist 76-78 are legitimate ones, and I'm not sure I've ever heard a compelling argument in favor of an alternate model.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 17/3/16 15:39 (UTC)Certainly a co-equal judiciary is a good thing (as an arbiter of the Constitutionality of laws and their adherence to fundamental principles of rights,) so we're left asking how members of that judiciary should be selected. I understand the problems with doing so through appointment by the executive, but there are distinct, and some might argue greater, problems with putting such positions up for popular election. Hamilton's concerns in Federalist 76-78 are legitimate ones, and I'm not sure I've ever heard a compelling argument in favor of an alternate model.