Hubbry Logo
Court appointmentCourt appointmentMain
Open search
Court appointment
Community hub
Court appointment
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Court appointment
Court appointment
Court appointment
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Court appointments are the traditional positions within a royal, ducal, or noble household. In the early Middle Ages, when such households were established, most court officials had either domestic or military duties; the monarch's closest advisers were those who served in the household. However, as time went by, most of these positions became hereditary, and their role in the running of the household was gradually eroded. In England, for instance, the Lord Great Chamberlain[1] and the Earl Marshal were originally responsible for the running of the royal household and the royal stables respectively; however, from the late medieval period onwards, their roles became largely honorary, their places in the household being taken by the Lord Chamberlain and the Master of the Horse.[1]

Today, many court titles survive in those European nations that retain royal courts. Examples of court appointments would include:

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Court appointment

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Court appointment is the constitutional and statutory process by which judges are nominated, vetted, and installed to serve on judicial benches, predominantly through executive selection with legislative to ensure and balances in systems featuring . In the United States federal judiciary, Article III judges—including justices, judges, and district court judges—are nominated by the President and confirmed by a simple majority vote in the , granting successful appointees during good behavior to insulate rulings from transient political pressures. This mechanism, rooted in the , aims to prioritize while allowing executive insight into legal philosophy and legislative scrutiny of qualifications. Globally and domestically, court appointment methods vary to balance merit, , and expertise, with pure appointment prevailing in federal and higher courts of common-law nations, while U.S. states employ hybrids including gubernatorial appointments with commission vetting, partisan or nonpartisan elections, or merit selection plans that combine nominating commissions with retention elections. In practice, these processes often reflect empirical trade-offs: appointed judges exhibit greater stability and detachment from electoral incentives but can embed executive ideologies long-term, whereas elected judges align more closely with local demographics yet face risks of campaign influences skewing . delays and ideological vetting have intensified in polarized environments, with confirmation rates for federal nominees fluctuating based on partisan control, historically deferential but increasingly contentious since the mid-20th century. Key controversies center on the causal links between appointment criteria and judicial outputs, including empirical findings that pre-appointment career paths—such as prosecutorial experience or academic roles—correlate with interpretive tendencies, and that selection methods impact court diversity by favoring certain professional networks over broader representation. Lifetime federal appointments, while designed for , amplify stakes by enabling precedents with enduring policy effects, prompting debates over whether reforms like term limits or expanded commissions could mitigate perceived politicization without eroding core .

Overview

Definition and Purpose

A court appointment is the formal mechanism by which a judicial officer is selected and installed to a position within the judiciary, typically involving nomination by an executive authority—such as a head of state or government—and subsequent vetting or confirmation by a legislative body or specialized commission to verify qualifications, integrity, and impartiality. This process applies to various levels of courts, from trial to appellate and supreme benches, and predominates in common-law systems for higher courts, where it serves as the primary alternative to direct popular election. Unlike elections, appointments emphasize merit-based criteria, including legal expertise, professional experience, and ethical standing, rather than electoral viability. The core purpose of court appointments is to ensure the judiciary is staffed with individuals capable of rendering decisions grounded in law and evidence, thereby upholding the , resolving disputes impartially, and protecting constitutional principles without succumbing to transient political pressures. By vesting selection in accountable branches of government while often incorporating lifetime tenure or fixed terms, the system seeks to foster , insulating judges from reprisals or incentives tied to popularity or campaign funding. Empirical analyses of appointment systems indicate they correlate with higher perceived in compared to elected judiciaries, where judges may face reelection incentives that influence rulings on politically salient issues. Appointments also aim to maintain institutional continuity and expertise, as vacancies arising from retirements, deaths, or elevations must be filled promptly to prevent backlogs in caseloads—federal U.S. courts, for instance, handled over 300,000 appeals annually as of 2023, underscoring the need for efficient judicial staffing. In practice, the process balances democratic input through elected nominators and confirmers with safeguards against unqualified or ideologically extreme candidates, though outcomes can reflect the appointing executive's policy priorities, as evidenced by shifts in judicial composition following U.S. presidential transitions. This dual emphasis on competence and underpins the method's prevalence across democratic and hybrid regimes seeking stable legal frameworks.

Historical Context

The appointment of judges has roots in ancient and medieval systems where rulers directly selected judicial officers to maintain order and apply customary laws, often prioritizing loyalty to the sovereign over popular election. In medieval , following the of , the king appointed justices from among trusted nobles or clerics to itinerant courts, evolving into more formalized roles by the with the establishment of the King's Bench and Common Pleas, where judges served at royal pleasure to enforce precedents. This monarchical model emphasized executive control to ensure uniform justice but risked favoritism, as removals could occur for political reasons until gradual reforms secured greater tenure stability. By the 17th and 18th centuries, English reforms under the introduced "good behavior" tenure for judges, removable only by parliamentary address, marking a shift toward from arbitrary royal dismissal while retaining appointments to balance expertise with accountability. This framework influenced colonial America, where governors appointed judges under charters, though some assemblies exerted influence, leading to tensions during the Revolutionary era over perceived executive overreach. Post-independence, early state constitutions varied: Virginia's 1776 document established as a separate with gubernatorial appointments subject to legislative oversight, while others adopted legislative elections to curb executive power. The U.S. federal system formalized appointment in Article II, Section 2 of the (ratified 1788), vesting nomination power in the President with , a compromise debated until the Convention's final weeks to prevent legislative dominance or unchecked executive picks, drawing from English precedents but adapting for republican . This yielded lifetime tenure during good behavior under Article III, ratified to insulate judges from political pressures, as evidenced by the creating district and circuit courts with 13 initial federal judges appointed by President Washington. Early controversies, such as the 1801 Midnight Judges under Adams, highlighted partisan risks, prompting Jeffersonian repeal and (1803), which affirmed while underscoring appointment's role in checking branches. In the , spurred state-level shifts toward judicial elections in over 20 states by 1850, aiming to democratize selection amid concerns over elite appointments, though federal adherence to nomination-consent persisted to prioritize legal acumen over electoral appeal. This evolution reflected causal tensions between judicial impartiality—best served by insulated appointments—and democratic legitimacy, with empirical patterns showing appointed judges facing fewer recusal conflicts from campaign funding than elected ones in politicized states. Modern hybrids, like Missouri's 1940 merit plan, emerged from reform movements addressing corruption scandals, blending commissions with gubernatorial picks to mitigate biases in pure appointment or election systems.

Methods of Selection

Appointment-Based Systems

Appointment-based systems for judicial selection entail the designation of judges by an executive authority, such as a , , or , frequently requiring subsequent approval from a legislative body or consultation with a judicial council to balance expertise with accountability. This approach predominates in higher courts across most democratic nations, aiming to prioritize legal qualifications and professional merit over popular vote dynamics, thereby fostering from transient political pressures. For instance, federal judiciary, the president nominates candidates who undergo confirmation, a process rooted in Article II of the Constitution. Internationally, similar mechanisms operate in countries like , where the appoints justices on the advice of the Minister of Justice, and in many European states, where executives propose nominees subject to parliamentary vetting. Empirical analyses indicate that appointment systems correlate with superior judicial output in terms of opinion quality and impartiality compared to election-based alternatives. Research examining U.S. state supreme courts from 1947 to 1994 found that appointed justices produce opinions with approximately 33% greater informational depth and analytical rigor, as measured by citation frequency and , attributing this to reduced incentives for populist signaling. Appointed judges also exhibit lower punitiveness in sentencing decisions, with studies showing electoral pressures in elected systems lead to harsher outcomes disproportionately affecting marginalized defendants to appeal to voter bases. In a comparative review of judicial performance, appointed judges demonstrated higher reversal rates on only in quantity of output, but their decisions reflected deeper legal reasoning insulated from influences that plague elected counterparts. Among U.S. states, 26 employ gubernatorial appointments for judges, often incorporating merit screening by judicial nominating commissions to mitigate executive discretion. Globally, a survey of 42 and other democratic countries revealed that executive-led appointments, sometimes hybridized with judicial council input, prevail for supreme and constitutional courts, as in and , where presidents nominate from shortlists to ensure competence while maintaining democratic oversight. Critics argue this method risks ideological capture by the appointing executive, yet data from cross-national studies underscore its effectiveness in sustaining perceived judicial legitimacy, with appointed judiciaries in stable democracies showing lower public distrust levels than elected ones amid politicized campaigns. is embedded through fixed terms, removal provisions for , and periodic reappointments, preventing entrenchment without performance evaluation.

Election-Based Systems

Election-based systems select judges through direct popular vote, allowing voters to choose judicial candidates in competitive elections rather than relying on executive or legislative appointments. This method emphasizes democratic accountability, tracing its origins to the Jacksonian era of the , when reforms sought to reduce elite control over the by extending elections to judgeships previously filled by appointment. In practice, candidates campaign on platforms, qualifications, and sometimes policy stances, with terms typically lasting 4 to 10 years, after which incumbents face reelection or retention votes where voters approve or reject continuance without named opponents. In the United States, election-based selection predominates at the state level, with 39 states employing elections for at least some judges as of 2024, including all or most appellate and positions in many jurisdictions. These divide into partisan elections, where candidates affiliate with (used by 7 states for selection: , , , , , , and ), and nonpartisan elections, adopted by 15 states for supreme courts to nominally curb overt partisanship by omitting party labels on ballots. Partisan systems explicitly link judicial races to party platforms, often aligning outcomes with electoral cycles, while nonpartisan formats aim to prioritize merit but empirical analyses indicate persistent underlying political influences, as candidates still receive party-endorsed funding and voter cues. Empirical studies reveal mixed outcomes for judicial performance under elections. Proponents argue they enhance , with elected judges showing greater responsiveness to public safety concerns, such as issuing harsher in criminal cases near reelection periods to to voters. However, research from 1947–1994 data on s finds that partisan elections correlate with lower-quality judges, measured by pre-selection experience and credentials, compared to nonpartisan or appointment systems, due to party loyalty overriding merit in primaries. Critics, including analyses of , highlight risks of politicization, where special interests donate heavily—totaling over $100 million in races from 2017–2020—potentially swaying rulings on issues like business regulation or , though causal links remain debated and not universally proven across jurisdictions. Nonpartisan elections mitigate some partisanship but do not eliminate donor influence or voter unfamiliarity with candidates, leading to higher retention rates (averaging 85–90% in retention votes) that can entrench mediocrity. Outside the , election-based systems remain exceptional, underscoring their rarity in global judicial design where appointments or exams prevail to preserve . Mexico's 2024 constitutional reform introduced the world's first nationwide popular election of all federal and state judges, implemented in June 2025 with over 2,600 positions contested, but it drew low turnout (around 13%) and criticism for enabling executive dominance under President Claudia Sheinbaum's Morena party, which secured most seats and raised fears of eroded in a system lacking prior electoral infrastructure. This experiment contrasts with state practices, highlighting causal risks of rapid democratization overwhelming institutional safeguards against or capture.

Merit Selection and Hybrid Approaches

Merit selection systems for judicial appointments employ a nonpartisan nominating commission to identify and recommend candidates based on qualifications, , and character, rather than political affiliation or electoral . The commission, typically composed of lawyers and non-lawyers appointed by diverse stakeholders such as the , bar associations, and legislative leaders, solicits applications, conducts evaluations including interviews and background checks, and forwards a shortlist of usually two to five qualified nominees to the appointing authority, most often the . This process aims to prioritize competence over partisan considerations, with the appointing authority selecting from the list without independent veto power over the commission's assessments. The prototypical model, known as the or Nonpartisan Court Plan, originated in in 1940 following voter approval via to replace elective systems amid concerns over politicization. Under this , after gubernatorial appointment from the commission's list, judges face periodic noncompetitive retention elections where voters decide solely on continuance in office based on , without opposing candidates. As of 2023, variations of merit selection apply to appellate or trial judges in approximately 24 states, including , , and , often for higher courts to insulate decisions from local electoral pressures. Empirical analyses indicate these systems correlate with higher judicial qualifications, as measured by bar admission rates and prior judicial experience among appointees compared to elected judges. Hybrid approaches integrate merit selection elements with other mechanisms to balance expertise, accountability, and democratic input. For instance, some states require legislative confirmation of gubernatorial choices from commission lists, as in Delaware where the senate advises and consents on supreme court nominees screened by a judicial nominating commission. Others combine initial merit-based appointment with subsequent partisan or nonpartisan elections for full terms, such as in Utah where supreme court justices are appointed via commission recommendation but must stand for election after a probationary period. These hybrids, used in states like Indiana for some trial courts, seek to mitigate risks of unchecked executive influence in pure merit systems while avoiding the fundraising demands of direct elections. Retention rates in hybrid merit systems exceed 95% in states like Missouri, suggesting sustained public approval absent misconduct allegations.

Federal Process in the United States

Presidential Nomination

The presidential nomination of federal judges, including those to the , courts of appeals, and district courts, derives from Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which empowers the President to nominate "Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the " with the Senate's . This clause establishes the executive's primary role in initiating the process for Article III judgeships, which carry lifetime tenure during good behavior, emphasizing the need for nominees with demonstrated legal acumen and impartiality. Vacancies arise from retirements, deaths, resignations, or statutory expansions of the , prompting the President to identify candidates through internal vetting by the White House Counsel's Office and the Department of Justice. Screening involves FBI background checks, review of judicial opinions or legal writings, and assessments of professional experience, often prioritizing sitting judges, prosecutors, or private practitioners with extensive or appellate records. Presidents exercise in selecting nominees whose interpretive approaches align with their priorities, as federal judges shape constitutional and statutory applications over decades. Consultation with senators, particularly from the nominee's home state, is a longstanding practice rooted in , where objections from these senators can influence or block nominations, especially for circuit and district courts. For appellate and trial court nominees, the informal "blue slip" tradition requires positive input from home-state senators before consideration advances, though its enforcement varies by leadership. selections typically involve greater direct presidential involvement, drawing from ideologically compatible lists curated by advisors, bypassing some senatorial deference due to the Court's national scope. Upon final selection, the President formally submits the to the via a message including the nominee's name, position, and supporting materials, marking the transition to legislative review. Historical data indicate variability in nomination volume; for example, presidents have nominated between 61 and 68 individuals to circuit courts in their first six years, influenced by vacancy rates and political dynamics. Delays in nomination can stem from interbranch tensions, as seen in periods of where fewer nominees are proposed to avoid battles. In rare cases, presidents have used recess appointments under Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 to bypass Senate consent temporarily, though modern precedents, such as NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014), have curtailed this authority by limiting recesses to those sanctioned by both chambers.

Senate Confirmation Procedures

The Senate confirmation process for federal judicial nominees derives from Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the President authority to nominate judges of the and inferior courts, subject to the Senate's . This requires a simple majority vote in the Senate for approval, with the casting a tie-breaking vote if needed. Upon , the process begins with referral to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which handles initial review for all Article III judicial positions. The Judiciary Committee initiates scrutiny by requiring the nominee to submit a detailed Senate Judiciary Questionnaire, covering employment history, publications, speeches, financial disclosures, and organizational affiliations spanning the prior 15–20 years or longer for Supreme Court nominees. Committee staff, often with assistance from the FBI, conduct background investigations, including interviews and review of judicial opinions or legal work. For nominees to circuit and district courts, the committee issues "blue slips" to the senators from the nominee's home state, soliciting their views on suitability; while not binding, negative blue slips historically delayed or blocked lower-court confirmations. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary may provide professional qualifications ratings—well qualified, qualified, or not qualified—based on independent evaluations. Following preliminary review, the committee schedules public hearings, typically lasting 2–4 days for nominees, where the nominee testifies under oath. Senators question the nominee on constitutional interpretation, prior rulings, ethical issues, and policy views, though nominees often invoke norms against predicting case outcomes. Additional panels of supporters or critics, such as legal scholars or advocacy groups, may testify. Post-hearing, the committee convenes a markup session to vote: it can report the favorably (with or without recommendation), adversely, or defer action indefinitely. A majority committee vote advances it; as of the 118th Congress (2023–2025), favorable reports often proceed without formal recommendation to expedite. Reported nominations move to the full , where the sets the floor schedule via or motion. Debate ensues, limited by rules but historically subject to until procedural changes: in November 2013, Democrats invoked the "nuclear option" to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for executive and lower-court nominees, requiring only a simple majority; Republicans extended this to justices in April 2017 during Neil Gorsuch's . These shifts, achieved by majority vote to reinterpret Senate Rule XXII, enable with 51 votes, reducing minority obstruction but increasing partisan stakes. A final up-or-down vote follows; upon majority approval, the transmits to the President, who issues the commission, allowing the to take . Delays or failures occur if the majority withholds floor time or votes against, as seen in historical rejections like Robert Bork's in 1987.

Role of Advisory Evaluations

The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary conducts advisory evaluations of nominees to Article III federal courts, assessing their integrity, judicial temperament, and professional competence through confidential peer reviews from lawyers and judges who know the nominee. These evaluations result in ratings of "Well Qualified," "Qualified," or "Not Qualified," which are forwarded exclusively to the Senate Judiciary Committee upon request and remain confidential until publicly released by the committee. The process for circuit and district court nominees traditionally involves pre-nomination vetting if the cooperates, while evaluations occur post-nomination; however, the ratings carry no binding authority and serve solely to inform senatorial judgment during confirmation hearings. In practice, these advisory ratings influence the federal appointment process by providing an independent professional assessment amid partisan debates, with "Well Qualified" ratings historically correlating with higher rates—over 95% for such nominees from 2000 to 2020—though "Not Qualified" ratings have occasionally derailed candidacies, as in the case of several Reagan-era district court nominees in the 1980s. Administrations vary in engagement: Democratic presidents like Obama reinstated pre-nomination ABA input in 2009 after Bush's 2001 suspension, while the Trump administration halted cooperation in November 2017, citing delays and perceived ideological skew, a policy reaffirmed in May 2025 when Pam directed the Justice Department to cease assisting ABA reviews due to unresolved concerns over rating consistency. Critics, including Republican senators and legal scholars, argue that the ABA's evaluations exhibit systemic left-leaning , pointing to disproportionately lower ratings for conservative nominees—such as 20% of Trump appellate picks rated "Qualified" versus 5% under Obama—despite empirical analyses showing ratings correlate more with legal experience than . The ABA defends its as apolitical and peer-driven, rebutting 2025 DOJ claims of with data indicating no partisan skew in aggregate ratings across administrations. This contention underscores the advisory nature's limitations, as confirmations proceed regardless of ratings, with 234 Trump nominees confirmed from 2017 to 2021 despite limited ABA input.

State and Local Variations

Gubernatorial and Legislative Appointments

In several U.S. states, governors appoint judges to state supreme courts and intermediate appellate courts to fill vacancies, with appointments often requiring by the state senate or another legislative body. This process mirrors the federal model but varies by state constitution and statutes, typically applying to initial terms followed by retention elections or reappointment in hybrid systems. For instance, in 14 states, gubernatorial nominees for positions undergo legislative to ensure alignment with state policy priorities. Pure gubernatorial appointment without a nominating commission occurs in 9 states and the District of Columbia for initial high court terms, allowing the executive broad discretion in selecting candidates based on legal qualifications, experience, and political compatibility. Examples include , where the appoints Supreme Court justices subject to review by the Commission on Judicial Appointments (composed of judicial and legislative members), and , where appointments receive . These systems prioritize executive judgment but can introduce partisan considerations, as governors often choose nominees from their political networks, with data showing appointed judges tending to reflect the appointing governor's in subsequent rulings. Legislative appointment, by contrast, vests selection authority directly in the , used in only two states for supreme court justices: and . In , the General Assembly elects justices to 10-year terms from nominees screened by a judicial merit selection commission, emphasizing legislative and regional representation. In , the General Assembly appoints justices to 12-year terms without a formal commission, with committees screening candidates before votes in each chamber, a process that has historically favored experienced attorneys with legislative ties. This method, rooted in colonial-era traditions, concentrates power in the representative branch but risks factional , as evidenced by occasional stalled appointments during sessions. In the United States, 39 states utilize popular elections to select at least some judges for their state courts, including justices in 21 states where direct partisan or nonpartisan elections determine initial terms. These methods emerged prominently in the mid-19th century during the Jacksonian era, as reformers sought to replace gubernatorial or legislative appointments—viewed as elitist and prone to —with direct voter accountability, beginning with 's 1832 constitution authorizing elections for certain judges and spreading to over half the states by 1850. Partisan elections, where candidates appear on ballots with party affiliations, are employed for seats in seven states: , , , , , , and ; these often involve primaries followed by general elections, with winners serving fixed terms typically ranging from 6 to 10 years. Nonpartisan elections, which omit party labels to emphasize qualifications over ideology, select judges in 14 states, including , , , , , , , , , Washington, and , with similar primary-general structures but prohibitions on overt party endorsements in some jurisdictions. Judicial campaigns in these systems mirror political races, requiring candidates to fundraise, advertise, and engage voters, often resulting in expenditures exceeding $100 million nationwide in high-stakes cycles like 2021–2022 for state supreme court contests alone. Business interests, labor unions, and political parties dominate contributions, with independent expenditures surging post-Citizens United v. FEC (2010), enabling unlimited outside spending that amplified attack ads in races such as Wisconsin's 2023 supreme court election, which cost over $50 million. Voter turnout remains low, averaging under 20% in many judicial elections, compounded by ballot placement rules and limited media coverage, though retention elections—noncompetitive yes/no votes post-initial term—apply in eight states like Illinois and Pennsylvania to assess incumbents without rivals. Empirical studies indicate that elected judges exhibit greater responsiveness to campaign donors and compared to appointed counterparts, with analyses of over 2,000 decisions from 1995–2000 finding elected judges 10–15% more likely to rule in favor of contributors in business-related cases post-election. Such patterns hold across partisan and nonpartisan systems, as evidenced by reversals in contributor-favorable rulings, though proponents argue this fosters absent in lifetime appointments, citing higher reversal rates for unpopular decisions in elected judiciaries. Critics, including former Justice , contend that financial pressures erode impartiality, with 89% of surveyed judges in electing states reporting campaign activities interfere with duties, yet no state has fully abandoned elections since their adoption due to entrenched democratic norms.

Commission-Driven Processes

In commission-driven processes, also termed merit selection or assisted appointment, independent judicial nominating commissions screen applicants, assess qualifications such as legal , , and , and submit a shortlist of typically 2 to 5 finalists to the state for appointment. This approach aims to prioritize merit over partisan or electoral considerations, with the governor required to select from the list within a fixed timeframe, often 30 to 60 days, to fill vacancies in appellate or trial courts. Commissions operate under state constitutional or statutory authority, conducting public notices for applications, background investigations, and interviews before forwarding nominees. Commissions generally comprise 5 to 15 members, balancing attorneys and laypersons to incorporate professional expertise and public input; for instance, attorneys may be elected by the state bar association, while non-attorneys are appointed by the , , or a mix thereof. In states like and , commissions include sitting judges or bar representatives to ensure continuity, but membership terms are staggered and limited to prevent entrenchment. As of 2024, 33 states and the District of Columbia employ this method for at least some judicial positions, particularly appellate courts, with 12 states and the District using commissions for all judges and 11 more for appellate selections exclusively. The , pioneered in via on November 5, 1940, exemplifies this model: a seven-member commission—three lawyers chosen by the bar, three non-lawyers appointed by the , and the —nominates candidates for the , court of appeals, and urban circuit courts. The appoints from three nominees, after which judges serve an initial term ( for , two for others) before facing nonpartisan retention elections, where voters decide yes/no on continuance without opposition. Adopted in 15 states by 2024, often with variations like initial six-year terms and periodic retention votes every 6 to 10 years, it has influenced hybrid systems in places like and . Empirical analyses indicate these processes correlate with judges exhibiting greater from electoral pressures compared to partisan elections, as evidenced by lower reversal rates on and reduced sensitivity to in sentencing decisions. However, commission designs can affect outcomes; those with strong safeguards show fewer instances of political capture, though bar-dominated panels have faced criticism for favoring establishment candidates over diverse or reform-oriented ones. Local adaptations, such as county-level commissions in states like , mirror state processes but scale to smaller benches, emphasizing community ties in evaluations.

International Comparisons

Appointment Models in Common Law Jurisdictions

In jurisdictions such as the , , and , judicial appointments emphasize executive authority tempered by merit-based criteria and independent advisory mechanisms, contrasting with the more politicized nomination-confirmation model in the United States. Appointments are generally made by a ceremonial —such as the monarch's representative—on the advice of the executive branch, prioritizing legal expertise, experience, and judicial temperament over electoral popularity. These systems seek to insulate judges from direct political pressure while maintaining accountability through parliamentary oversight or consultative processes, though executive discretion persists in candidate selection. In , the (JAC), established under the , conducts open competitions to select candidates solely on merit for most judicial roles, including senior courts and tribunals. The JAC, comprising 15 members (including judges, lawyers, and lay representatives), recommends appointees to the , who holds a statutory power of exercisable only in exceptional cases of national security or misconduct concerns. For the UK , a special commission—chaired by the President of the and including senior judges and lay members—handles selections, forwarding names to the for formal appointment by the ; this process, formalized in 2009, requires consultation with devolved administrations for UK-wide implications. Canada's federal judicial appointments, covering superior courts, the Federal Court, and the Supreme Court of Canada, are executed by the Governor in Council—effectively the Governor General acting on Cabinet advice, led by the Prime Minister—following assessments by independent Judicial Advisory Committees (JACs) in each province and territory. These JACs, comprising members from the bench, bar, law enforcement, and academia, evaluate candidates on merit using standardized criteria like legal ability and ethical character, rating them as highly recommended, recommended, or not recommended before forwarding shortlists to the Minister of Justice. For Supreme Court vacancies since 2016, an Independent Advisory Board for Supreme Court Appointments screens applicants against seven merit-based criteria, including bilingualism and representation of underrepresented groups, though the Prime Minister retains final discretion; provincial inferior court judges are appointed similarly by provincial cabinets. Australia employs a consultative executive model for federal judiciary appointments, including the High Court and Federal Court, where the Governor-General appoints judges on the advice of the Attorney-General, who consults the Cabinet and relevant legal bodies such as the Australian Bar Association. Vacancies are advertised publicly, with expressions of interest assessed against criteria like judicial skills and integrity outlined in government protocols, but no binding independent commission exists; for High Court justices, the Attorney-General conducts targeted consultations with state attorneys-general and the judiciary before recommending to the Prime Minister. State-level appointments vary, often mirroring federal processes with gubernatorial or ministerial advice, emphasizing expedition to minimize court backlogs—federal vacancies are targeted for filling within months. Other systems, such as India's collegium model—where the effectively self-selects senior judges through a collegium of the and senior justices recommending to the executive—represent deviations toward judicial , stemming from 1993 rulings to curb executive overreach. and similarly blend executive nomination with parliamentary approval or commissions, but core Westminster traditions prioritize merit selection to foster amid executive influence.

Civil Law and Other Systems

In civil law jurisdictions, judicial appointments typically emphasize merit-based selection through rigorous examinations and professional training rather than political nomination, fostering a career insulated from partisan influence. Candidates usually enter the profession via competitive entry exams following , followed by specialized judicial training academies that prepare them for roles as prosecutors or judges. This model prioritizes technical expertise and bureaucratic stability over electoral or executive discretion, contrasting with adversarial systems. For instance, in , aspiring judges must pass the concours examination administered by the , with successful candidates undergoing 31 months of training at the École Nationale de la Magistrature (ENM), established in 1958, before initial assignments as deputy prosecutors or investigating magistrates. Promotions and higher court placements occur through seniority, performance evaluations by peers, and oversight by bodies like the Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature, which recommends appointments to the executive while maintaining from direct political control. Germany exemplifies a federalized civil law approach where judicial careers begin after two state bar exams (Erste Juristische Prüfung and Zweite Juristische Prüfung), with candidates serving as Rechtsreferendare in practical training for about two years before qualifying for judgeships. Appointments to lower courts are made by state justice ministries based on exam results and assessments, while federal Supreme Court judges are selected by a of federal and state ministers, parliamentarians, and legal experts, requiring a two-thirds majority to minimize partisanship. This system, rooted in the post-World War II (1949), ensures judges' independence through after probation, with removals only via proceedings. Empirical data from the German Federal Ministry of Justice indicate that over 90% of judges are career professionals selected pre-politically, reducing turnover linked to elections. In Italy, the Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura (CSM), a constitutionally independent body comprising elected magistrates and lay members appointed by , handles most appointments and promotions based on evaluations of judicial output, with initial entry via public competitions after degrees. Established under the 1948 Constitution, this process has faced criticism for internal factionalism among magistrate associations influencing selections, yet it maintains a non-partisan core compared to executive-driven models. Similar patterns appear in , where the Consejo General del Poder Judicial proposes judges after oposiciones (competitive exams), with the executive formally appointing but bound by recommendations to preserve autonomy. Across Latin American civil law nations like , judicial selection often blends exams with political input; the Supremo Tribunal Federal justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the , but lower judges enter via public concours, reflecting hybrid influences from Portuguese civil tradition. These systems generally yield judiciaries with high , as evidenced by data showing civil law countries averaging 0.65 on rule-of-law independence indices versus 0.58 for peers, though vulnerabilities to executive pressure persist in less institutionalized states.

Controversies and Criticisms

Politicization and Partisan Influence

The nomination and confirmation of federal judges, particularly to the , have increasingly been shaped by partisan ideology rather than qualifications alone, with presidents selecting nominees aligned with their political views and senatorial opposition leveraging procedural tactics to block perceived threats to ideological balance. This shift intensified after the 1987 rejection of , nominated by President , where Senate Democrats portrayed his originalist as extreme, leading to a 58-42 defeat amid unprecedented media scrutiny and interest group mobilization. Subsequent nominations, such as in 1991, saw partisan divides sharpen, with Thomas confirmed 52-48 after allegations of misconduct that divided along party lines, receiving support from only 41 of 57 Democrats. Confirmation rates reflect this partisanship: historically, the Senate confirmed 77% of 164 nominations from 1789 to 2020, but success falls below 60% under compared to nearly 90% under unified control, as opposition parties prioritize ideological vetting over bipartisan consensus. For instance, in 2016, Senate Republicans, holding a 54-46 majority, refused to hold hearings on Merrick Garland's nomination by President , citing the election-year timing, which allowed President to appoint in 2017 after Democrats , prompting Republicans to invoke the "nuclear option" to eliminate the filibuster for nominees with a 51-48 vote. This procedural escalation has normalized near-party-line votes, as seen in Brett Kavanaugh's 2018 confirmation (50-48), supported by all Republicans present and opposed by all Democrats, and Amy Coney Barrett's 2020 confirmation (52-48), which occurred weeks before the despite earlier precedents. Empirical analyses confirm ideological screening drives these outcomes: presidents increasingly nominate judges whose prior rulings align with party priorities, with studies showing a rise in polarized votes since the , where nominees receive minimal cross-party support—e.g., garnered just 19% from Democrats, a stark departure from earlier eras of lopsided bipartisan approval. Recent research on federal circuit courts documents growing partisanship, with nominees vetted for ideological compatibility and confirmed judges exhibiting heightened polarization in decisions, as partisan affiliation correlates strongly with voting patterns in ideologically charged cases. This dynamic extends to lower federal courts, where presidents like Trump appointed over 200 judges, many vetted by conservative groups for alignment on issues like regulatory , while Democratic administrations prioritize diversity and progressive leanings, though confirmation bottlenecks persist under opposition control. Such politicization undermines perceptions of judicial impartiality, as evidenced by declining metrics tied to high-profile battles, yet it stems from rational partisan incentives: controlling the offers long-term policy leverage given lifetime tenure, prompting both parties to treat nominations as zero-sum contests rather than merit-based exercises.

Lifetime Tenure and Accountability Issues

Under Article III of the , federal judges, including justices, hold their offices during "good Behaviour," granting them lifetime tenure absent impeachment and conviction or voluntary retirement. This structure aims to insulate the from political pressures, ensuring decisions based on law rather than electoral incentives. However, it raises concerns, as removal requires impeachment by the for ", , or other " followed by conviction by a two-thirds vote, a process rarely invoked. Historical data underscores the infrequency of judicial impeachments: since 1789, only 15 federal judges have been impeached by the , with eight convicted and removed by the . The most recent removal occurred in 2010, involving Judge for corruption and false statements under oath, averaging roughly one impeachment every 14 years across more than two centuries. This scarcity stems from the high threshold for "," which courts and scholars interpret as serious misconduct rather than mere disagreement with rulings, limiting accountability for ethical lapses short of criminality. Critics argue this enables unchecked behavior, such as conflicts of interest or ideological entrenchment, without effective recourse beyond or self-regulation. Lifetime tenure exacerbates issues of judicial and fitness, with justices serving an average of 16 years but often remaining until advanced age. Recent data show an average of approximately 79, up from 58 in the early republic, reflecting improved and strategic timing to align with favorable presidential administrations. For instance, justices have delayed to await ideologically aligned successors, as seen in patterns where vacancies cluster during unified government periods, potentially perpetuating partisan imbalances on the bench. Empirical analyses indicate that extended tenures correlate with risks of cognitive decline, with historical critiques noting instances of "mental decrepitude" among elderly justices, though formal assessments remain absent due to tenure protections. Proponents of , including surveys of judges, highlight how lifetime appointments hinder democratic renewal and diversity, with a majority polled opposing the system for enabling unaccountable service amid evolving societal needs. Accountability deficits are compounded by limited oversight mechanisms, such as the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, which handles complaints but cannot remove judges, leaving as the sole constitutional remedy—effective only in extreme cases. These dynamics foster perceptions of an insulated , where long-serving judges may drift from contemporary legal interpretations without electoral or temporal checks, as evidenced by doctrinal shifts over decades-long careers.

Empirical Impacts on Judicial Outcomes

Empirical analyses of state judicial selection methods reveal that elected judges tend to impose harsher criminal compared to appointed judges, with sentencing severity increasing in proximity to retention elections. A study examining data from multiple states found that judges facing re-election levy longer for comparable offenses, attributing this to electoral incentives favoring demonstrable toughness on . Similarly, research on judges across electing states documented a 10-15% spike in incarceration rates in the year preceding elections, driven by voter preferences for punitive outcomes over rehabilitative ones. Cross-state comparisons indicate that jurisdictions relying on partisan elections produce systematically more punitive outcomes than those using merit-based appointments or gubernatorial selections. For instance, an analysis of sentencing patterns from 1970-2010 across U.S. states showed elected judges affirming convictions at higher rates and issuing longer terms, with effects persisting beyond cycles due to institutionalized norms of severity. Republican-affiliated elected judges in states like exhibited even greater disparities, sentencing defendants to incarceration terms 20-30% longer than Democratic counterparts for identical charges, reflecting partisan voter bases' preferences. In federal courts, where lifetime appointments by the president with confirmation predominate, links appointing president's party to ideological divergence in case outcomes. Data from circuit courts post-2000 show Republican appointees ruling conservatively in 65-70% of ideologically charged cases (e.g., , regulatory takings), compared to 60-65% liberal rulings by Democratic appointees, with polarization intensifying after partisan gridlock in confirmations. Sentencing disparities also emerge, as federal judges appointed by Republican presidents impose sentences 10-15% longer for defendants relative to counterparts, controlling for offense severity, while Democratic appointees show narrower gaps but leniency toward certain socioeconomic factors. These patterns suggest appointments embed executive ideology into long-term judicial behavior, contrasting with electoral systems' episodic responsiveness but yielding more consistent policy alignment.

Recent Developments and Reforms

Post-2016 Confirmation Trends

Following the refusal by Senate Democrats to consider President Barack Obama's nominee Merrick Garland in 2016, which extended a Supreme Court vacancy into the subsequent administration, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell invoked the "nuclear option" on April 6, 2017, eliminating the 60-vote filibuster threshold for Supreme Court nominations and requiring only a simple majority for cloture and confirmation. This procedural change, applied first to Neil Gorsuch's nomination, enabled confirmations amid narrow partisan majorities, marking a departure from prior norms where supermajorities were often needed to overcome extended debate. Post-2016 confirmations thus trended toward stricter party-line voting, with minimal bipartisan support and heightened contention over nominees' records, ideology, and personal allegations, reflecting broader polarization in Senate proceedings. Neil Gorsuch, nominated by President Donald Trump on January 31, 2017, to fill the Scalia vacancy, faced initial Democratic filibuster attempts but was advanced after the filibuster rule change, confirmed on April 7, 2017, by a 54-45 vote, with three Democrats joining Republicans. The process spanned 66 days, involving extensive Judiciary Committee scrutiny of his judicial philosophy but relatively subdued personal attacks compared to later nominations. Brett Kavanaugh's nomination, announced July 9, 2018, to replace Anthony Kennedy, extended to 89 days amid sexual misconduct allegations against him, requiring FBI supplemental investigations; cloture passed 51-49 on October 5, followed by confirmation on October 6 by 50-48, with no Democratic support. Amy Coney Barrett's nomination on September 26, 2020, to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg—occurring 46 days before the presidential election—proceeded rapidly, with hearings October 12-15 and confirmation October 26 by 52-48, again without Democratic votes, underscoring accusations of hypocrisy given the 2016 Garland blockade. Under President , Ketanji Brown Jackson's nomination on February 28, 2022, to replace marked the first Black woman's advancement to the Court; her process lasted 38 days, with confirmation on April 7 by 53-47, including three Republican votes (, , and ), representing the least partisan margin since 1986. Overall, post-2016 votes averaged below 55% Senate support, down from historical supermajorities, with zero cross-party confirmation for Trump nominees except Gorsuch and partial for Jackson.
NomineePresidentNomination DateConfirmation DateSenate VoteBipartisan Yes Votes
TrumpJan. 31, 2017Apr. 7, 201754-453 Democrats
TrumpJul. 9, 2018Oct. 6, 201850-480 Democrats
TrumpSep. 26, 2020Oct. 26, 202052-480 Democrats
BidenFeb. 28, 2022Apr. 7, 202253-473 Republicans
These trends indicate a solidification of simple-majority confirmations, correlating with extended hearing durations—averaging over 80 days for contested Trump nominees versus historical medians under 30—and elevated rhetorical intensity, including unprecedented focus on nominees' off-bench conduct rather than alone. Senate hearings post-2016 featured markedly higher volumes of partisan statements and questions, with data showing a doubling in utterances compared to pre-2016 eras, driven by media amplification and interest-group mobilization. Critics from both parties attribute this to reciprocal escalations, with Democrats citing Republican obstruction of Garland as for intensified , while Republicans point to Democratic tactics in Kavanaugh's hearing as evidence of norm erosion. Empirical analyses confirm declining confirmation probabilities under , falling below 60% since the , exacerbating perceptions of the Court as a partisan prize.

Ongoing Debates on Term Limits and Ethics

Proposals for nonrenewable 18-year terms for U.S. justices have gained traction as a means to promote regular turnover and reduce the stakes of individual appointments, with advocates arguing that lifetime tenure exacerbates politicization by creating prolonged vacancies during presidential transitions. Simulations of historical data indicate that such staggered terms, if implemented retroactively for senior justices, would have resulted in more predictable court compositions over the past century, potentially mitigating perceptions of strategic retirements timed to partisan advantage. Critics, including some constitutional scholars, contend that statutory term limits without amendment risk violating Article III's "good behavior" , which has been interpreted to permit tenure during good behavior absent explicit limits, though proponents assert holds authority over non-Article III aspects of judicial structure. Public support for term limits remains robust, with a October 2025 poll showing 75% of favoring them, including 67% of Republicans, reflecting bipartisan concern over extended tenures amid declining trust in the following high-profile rulings. Legislative momentum includes Representative Hank Johnson's May 2025 reintroduction of a bill mandating 18-year limits to "restore balance and legitimacy," echoing earlier bipartisan efforts like the 2023 resolution by Senators Manchin and Welch. Opponents highlight potential erosion of , as fixed terms could incentivize justices to align rulings with anticipated post-service opportunities or successor preferences, though empirical studies on state judiciaries with term limits show mixed effects on decision-making impartiality, with no clear causal link to reduced accountability. Debates on judicial center on transitioning from the Supreme Court's voluntary 2023 code to a mandatory, enforceable framework, driven by revelations of undisclosed gifts and recusals involving justices like and . The , Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023, reintroduced in subsequent sessions, would impose binding recusal standards for conflicts of interest, enhanced financial disclosures, and penalties via an oversight committee, addressing gaps in self-regulation that critics argue undermine public confidence. Similarly, the Judicial and Act mandates a enforceable code with restrictions on post-judgment and spousal activities, reflecting concerns that voluntary compliance lacks teeth, as evidenced by inconsistent recusal practices—such as Justice Amy Coney Barrett's 2025 recusals in cases tied to her former clerk—without uniform enforcement mechanisms. These reforms face resistance from defenders of judicial , who warn that external mandates could invite politicized complaints, potentially pressuring rulings; however, comparative analysis of lower federal courts' binding codes shows no significant deviation in outcomes attributable to , suggesting feasibility without compromising . President Biden's 2024 endorsement of enforceable alongside term limits underscores the linkage, positing both as bulwarks against perceived , though implementation hinges on congressional majorities amid partisan divides. Ongoing scholarly assessments emphasize that while lapses are rare relative to caseloads, high-visibility incidents amplify legitimacy costs, fueling calls for transparency absent in lifetime appointments.

References

  1. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/about-federal-judges/types-federal-judges/faqs-federal-judges
  2. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44235
  3. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-federal-judges
  4. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx
  5. http://judiciariesworldwide.fjc.gov/judicial-selection
  6. https://moderncourts.org/programs-advocacy/judicial-selection/methods-of-judicial-selection/
  7. https://effectivegov.uchicago.edu/primers/elected-vs-appointed-judges
  8. https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/nominations/judicial-nominations-overview.htm
  9. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R43762
  10. https://ir.law.utk.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=utk_lawpubl
  11. https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/picking-judges-how-judicial-selection-methods-affect-diversity-in-state-appellate-courts/
  12. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/judicial-selection-united-states-special-report
  13. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/resources/judges-journal/archive/judicial-selection-united-states-overview
  14. https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/Judicial-Appointments-EN.pdf
  15. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/the-judicial-appointment-process-michael-a-fragoso/
  16. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1325&context=clr
  17. https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3903&context=faculty_pub
  18. https://academic.oup.com/book/12380/chapter/161974416
  19. https://www.fjc.gov/history/talking/teaching-and-civic-outreach-resources-constitutional-origins-federal-judiciary-3
  20. https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/executive-role-appointment-federal-judges
  21. https://www.usmarshals.gov/who-we-are/history/historical-reading-room/judiciary-act-of-1789-charter-us-marshals-and-deputies
  22. https://www.fjc.gov/history/spotlight-judicial-history/midnight-judges
  23. https://moderncourts.org/programs-advocacy/judicial-selection/historical-background-of-merit-selection/
  24. https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/the-case-for-judicial-appointments
  25. https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/judicial-appointments-primer.pdf
  26. https://en.idi.org.il/articles/48993
  27. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2013/02/22/researchers-find-appointed-justices-outperform-elected-counterparts
  28. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics/389/
  29. https://voxdev.org/topic/institutions-political-economy/impact-presidential-appointment-judges-montesquieu-or
  30. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/40222/chapter/345891384
  31. https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/a-survey-of-empirical-evidence-concerning-judicial-elections
  32. https://eji.org/judicial-selection/
  33. https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_election_of_judges
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272721001146
  35. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/rethinking-judicial-selection-state-courts
  36. https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-america-caribbean/central-america/mexico/peoples-court-weighing-mexicos-first-elections-for-judges
  37. https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/mexicos-judicial-election-is-a-blow-for-democracy/
  38. https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/does-merit-selection-work/
  39. https://www.pmconline.org/judicial-advocacy-reform/merit-selection-system
  40. https://iaals.du.edu/blog/merit-selection-balances-judicial-independence-accountability
  41. https://yourmissourijudges.org/the-missouri-plan/
  42. https://yourmissourijudges.org/the-missouri-plan/how-it-works/
  43. https://ballotpedia.org/Assisted_appointment_%28Hybrid%29
  44. https://www.brennancenter.org/judicial-selection-map
  45. https://instituteforlegalreform.com/wp-content/uploads/media/meritselectionbooklet.pdf
  46. https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/nomination-process.pdf
  47. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-5/ALDE_00013096/
  48. https://www.acslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/The-Federal-Judicial-Nominations-Process-1.pdf
  49. https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1523&context=faculty
  50. https://www.wilmerhale.com/-/media/c0cacbde8df34952959403f3df1abbfe.pdf
  51. https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/nominations.htm
  52. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43931
  53. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-2/appointments-of-justices-to-the-supreme-court
  54. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/26/politics/supreme-court-confirmation-process
  55. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks/nomination-process
  56. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks/nomination-process/senate-judiciary-questionnaire-nomination-process
  57. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/federal_judiciary/
  58. https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/publications/governmental_affairs_periodicals/washingtonletter/2013/november/filibuster/
  59. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/06/senate-nuclear-option-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court
  60. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/01/fact-check-gop-ended-senate-filibuster-supreme-court-nominees/3573369001/
  61. https://www.heritage.org/political-process/commentary/5-years-after-going-nuclear-democrats-have-reaped-what-they-sowed
  62. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL31980
  63. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/federal_judiciary/ratings/evaluations-faq/
  64. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/federal_judiciary/ratings/
  65. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/federal_judiciary/ratings/supreme-court-evaluation-process/
  66. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45622
  67. https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-statement-on-trump-justice-department-no-longer-cooperating-with-aba-vetting-and-rating-process-of-judicial-nominees
  68. https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1402156/dl?inline
  69. https://texaslawreview.org/evaluating-the-evaluator-has-the-aba-rated-president-trumps-judicial-nominees-fairly/
  70. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1368891_code997240.pdf?abstractid=1368891&mirid=1&type=2
  71. https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/aba-president-bay-says-data-doesnt-support-DOJ-claims-of-bias-in-judicial-ratings-process
  72. https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_during_the_Trump_administration
  73. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/judicial-selection-significant-figures
  74. https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_the_states
  75. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/legislative-appointments-judges-lessons-south-carolina-virginia-and-rhode
  76. https://statecourtreport.org/state/south-carolina
  77. https://courts.uslegal.com/selection-of-judges/state-by-state-summary-of-judicial-selection/
  78. https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/how-state-supreme-court-justices-are-selected/
  79. https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1082&context=jolpi
  80. https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_election_methods_by_state
  81. https://ballotpedia.org/Nonpartisan_election_of_judges
  82. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/politics-judicial-elections-2021-2022
  83. https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/independent-spending-in-state-supreme-court-elections-after-citizens-united/
  84. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/31/wisconsin-supreme-court-election-explainer
  85. https://2021-2025.state.gov/briefings-foreign-press-centers/2024-elections-fpc/judicial-elections/
  86. https://www.cerge-ei.cz/pdf/events/papers/101206_t.pdf
  87. https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/campaign-cash-and-judicial-outcomes
  88. https://wlr.law.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1263/2021/12/14-Kang-Shepherd-Camera-Ready.pdf
  89. https://iaals.du.edu/projects/oconnor-judicial-selection-plan/judicial-nominating-commissions
  90. https://ballotpedia.org/Assisted_appointment_of_state_court_judges
  91. https://iaals.du.edu/sites/default/files/documents/publications/jnc_makeup.pdf
  92. https://www.judicialselection.us/judicial-nominating-commissions/
  93. https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/state-judicial-selection-reforms-to-promote-a-fair-and-independent-judiciary/
  94. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Rethinking_Judicial_Selection_State_Courts.pdf
  95. https://iaals.du.edu/sites/default/files/documents/publications/choosing_judges_jnc_report.pdf
  96. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/jud-acc-ind/jud-appts/
  97. https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/topics/appointments/judicial.html
  98. https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/courts/judicial-appointments
  99. https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/
  100. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2019-0223/
  101. https://www.fja-cmf.gc.ca/appointments-nominations/guideCandidates-eng.html
  102. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/ccs-ajc/05.html
  103. https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/how-is-a-high-court-judge-chosen
  104. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/Research/FlagPost/2021/November/Judicial_Appointments
  105. https://comparativeconstitutionsproject.org/files/judicial_appointments.pdf?5a70b3
  106. https://epstein.wustl.edu/advice
  107. https://www.statista.com/statistics/696558/confirmation-vote-breakdown-of-us-sepreme-court-justices-by-party/
  108. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL33225
  109. https://www.cato.org/testimony/perspectives-supreme-court-practitioners-views-confirmation-process
  110. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm
  111. https://www.axios.com/2019/05/27/supreme-court-confirmation-vote-margin
  112. https://thefulcrum.us/supreme-court-nominees
  113. https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2024/october/study-shows-partisanship-and-politics-in-the-federal-circuit-cou.html
  114. https://epstein.wustl.edu/apptideology
  115. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5150&context=lcp
  116. https://eagletonpoliticaljournal.rutgers.edu/growing-politicization-of-the-us-supreme-court/
  117. https://gwjusticejournal.com/2024/06/18/a-historical-overview-of-the-politicization-of-the-supreme-court/
  118. https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/impeachments-federal-judges
  119. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/impeachment-and-removal-judges-explainer
  120. https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/justice-roberts-gets-it-wrong-federal-judges-conflicts-of-interest-threaten-the-entire-judiciary/
  121. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_justices.aspx
  122. https://blogs.gonzaga.edu/gulawreview/files/2011/01/Mazza.pdf
  123. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1364&context=facpub
  124. https://www.judges.org/news-and-info/the-majority-of-judges-polled-oppose-lifetime-appointments/
  125. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3002&context=faculty_scholarship
  126. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147596721000159
  127. https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=poli_sci_pub
  128. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/How_Judicial_Elections_Impact_Criminal_Cases.pdf
  129. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-and-courts/article/judicial-selection-and-criminal-punishment/3C4DE9E89F5B169C694E2CD792251632
  130. https://waynelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/66.2-WAYNE-L.-REV.-347.pdf
  131. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32920/w32920.pdf
  132. https://www.aeaweb.org/research/federal-judicial-appointments-politics-impact-sentencing-decisions
  133. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1670&context=wlufac
  134. https://www.statista.com/chart/14477/votes-for-us-supreme-court-justice-since-1986/
  135. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-harder-than-ever-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-justice/
  136. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1131&context=rcapitol
  137. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3261094-how-supreme-court-fights-turned-into-warfare-a-timeline/
  138. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-term-limits-are-path-more-accountable-high-court
  139. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2196&context=public_law_and_legal_theory
  140. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/can-congress-enact-supreme-court-term-limits-without-a-constitutional-amendment
  141. https://www.newsweek.com/most-republicans-want-supreme-court-term-limits-poll-10921684
  142. http://hankjohnson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-johnson-re-introduces-supreme-court-justice-term-limit-measure-0
  143. https://iaals.du.edu/blog/updated-term-limits-united-states-supreme-court
  144. https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1884&context=faculty
  145. https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2024/08/enforceable-ethics-for-the-supreme-court/
  146. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/359
  147. https://afj.org/article/the-legislative-paths-to-supreme-court-ethics-and-accountability/
  148. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5236065-supreme-court-judicial-ethics-recusal/
  149. https://www.nycbar.org/reports/the-supreme-court-needs-a-mandatory-and-enforceable-code-of-ethics/
  150. https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/strengthen-our-courts/supreme-court-reform
  151. https://washingtondc.jhu.edu/news/four-legal-experts-judge-supreme-court-reforms/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.