The topic of judicial selection has long been a source of contention among political theorists. Proponents of judicial appointment argue that appointment insulates judges from public opinion, thus removing the partisan pressures faced by politicians. Proponents of judicial elections argue that electing judges is the more democratic option, and point to empirical evidence suggesting that judges often behave in a partisan manner regardless of whether they are appointed or elected, so they should just be elected. Which do you think is the better option- appointing or electing judges? Why? How does this relate to the concepts of judicial restraint and judicial activism? Make sure to address opposing arguments in your essay.

The topic of judicial selection has long been a source of contention among political theorists. Proponents of judicial appointment argue that appointment insulates judges from public opinion, thus removing the partisan pressures faced by politicians. Proponents of judicial elections argue that electing judges is the more democratic option, and point to empirical evidence suggesting that judges often behave in a partisan manner regardless of whether they are appointed or elected, so they should just be elected. Which do you think is the better option- appointing or electing judges? Why? How does this relate to the concepts of judicial restraint and judicial activism? Make sure to address opposing arguments in your essay.