Question

question 32 (multiple choice worth 3 points)
(02.06r mc)

which of the following is the most likely argument for supporting the election of federal judges?

judges would be less biased when making their decisions.
judicial independence from party politics would remain intact.
elections would allow judges to remain committed to the constitution.
elections would serve as a check on the judicial branchs power.

Explanation:

Analyze the core debate of judicial selection

The question asks for the most likely argument in favor of electing federal judges. Currently, federal judges are appointed for life to ensure judicial independence, but proponents of judicial elections argue for democratic accountability.

Evaluate the impact on judicial bias and independence

Using the Judicial Decision-Making knowledge point:
Elections generally increase political pressure on judges, which can lead to more bias rather than less, and compromises judicial independence from party politics. Thus, the first two options are incorrect.

Evaluate constitutional commitment

Elections do not inherently guarantee a stronger commitment to the Constitution compared to lifetime appointments, as elected judges may feel pressured to satisfy public opinion over constitutional principles.

Evaluate democratic checks on power

Using the Judicial Review knowledge point:
The strongest argument for electing judges is that popular elections allow the public to hold the judiciary accountable, serving as a direct democratic check on the branch's power.

Answer:

• Judges would be less biased when making their decisions.
• Judicial independence from party politics would remain intact.
• Elections would allow judges to remain committed to the Constitution.
• Elections would serve as a check on the judicial branch's power. (Correct answer)