Kali.kb
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#1
If you've seen me around the LNAT 2020 thread then you'll know that this is my second time doing the LNAT and I can give decent advice but I just still need some form of feedback to improve and smash the essay as me reading it myself isn't the most reliable thing as I may end up being biased.

LNAT ESSAY
”How should judges be appointed?”
(Started at 9:26) (Finished at 10:04) (not proof read)

For one to argue around the debate of the appointment process of the Supreme Court judges, it is imperative to understand the role of the Supreme Court judges. Supreme Court judges are put in place to safeguard the constitution and uphold the rights of the people. However, it can be said that due to the nature of the role of the Supreme Court judges that it is key that Supreme Court judges are appointed by the people. This essay will explore the compelling arguments against this ideology to prove that the idea of the Supreme Court judges being appointed by the people is extremely whimsical and lacks sustainability when put in practice, potentially endangering citizens than protecting their rights.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, meaning that the Supreme Court judges need to be appointed by someone qualified and trusted enough to ensure that the role is filled by someone who is fit for purpose and can ensure that they have the best interests of the people at heart. The Judicial Appointments Committee are the clear fit for the role of appointing judges as the are more likely to be specialists in the area and know exactly what they’re looking for. To put it quite simply, the public aren't qualified enough in order to appoint a Supreme Court judge. There will be a large variety of the public who don’t know much about the role, whilst there will be others who have no regard for the law. Humans are lead by emotion, leading to irrational decisions which could then result in the wrong person being appointed, or the public potentially changing their mind on their choice of judge and turning on them at a later stage. This has been constantly repeated throughout the history of politics, where the public will vote in a party via the majority vote, only to turn on them later due to changes in political stance or dissatisfaction of their service. This simply proves that it’s better to leave the job of appointing the Supreme Court judges to the Judicial Appointments Committee as they have been trained to do their role and are less likely to decide based on emotion.

It is understandable that many people would argue that due to the fact that they pay taxes which help our legal system, they should be able to appoint judges to court via a public ballot – similar to that of a general election which allows the judges to be directly accountable for any wrong decisions. However, it is key that the judges are appointed based on competency rather than ideology and that they are free from politicization in order to operate without bias. This means that having judges being appointed via public ballot would leave many judges vulnerable to being forced to use popularity to be able to get their job, potentially resulting in the issue of being bribed by pressure groups on the far right with promises of campaign funding and a guaranteed vote if they simply shared their same ideals and uphold those as a judge. This can easily be seen within the USA where the Supreme Court judges are split by ideology rather than competency which has allowed some very extreme laws to be passed, such as the ban on transgender people in the army and the challenges around gun laws simply because they are directly nominated through a system that is extremely politicized. How are we expected to believe that our rights will be protected if the system allows people with extreme ideas to be Supreme Court judges? The clear answer is that we aren’t and that’s why the system of appointing judges should be left as it is and in the hands of the Judicial Appointments Committee, the system hasn’t produced a fascist judge and guarantees that they aren’t politicised.

In summary, it can simply be said that despite debates supporting the Supreme Court judges being appointed via the public, the idea simply doesn’t take into account issues surrounding human nature, the line between competency and ideology and the risk of the process of appointment being politicised. Clearly proving that the role of appointing judges should continue to be left with the Judicial Appointments Committee. To quote political theorist, Thomas Hobbes “humans are weak and selfish” and if left to our own devices “it will end in war.” We lead with our instinct and selfish desires with very rare thoughts spared on the consequences of our actions. As a result, we are unable to be the deciding factor in a role that surrounds the safeguarding of the constitution and our rights and the job should continue to be left to those who are fully qualified for the role.

Thanks in advance if you give feedback x
0
reply
MrMusician95
Badges: 17
#2
Report 1 week ago
#2
I wouldn't post it here. I'm not too familiar with the LNAT but can't someone literally steal your essay and use it themselves?
0
reply
Kali.kb
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#3
(Original post by MrMusician95)
I wouldn't post it here. I'm not too familiar with the LNAT but can't someone literally steal your essay and use it themselves?
I get where you're coming from but it's fine! This was on old question available to the lnat website as a practice question. In the real thing everyone's questions are usually different (idk how its programmed but sometimes not even gets the same choice of five questions)

Thank you for the concern though!
0
reply
J Papi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 week ago
#4
Posting to remind myself to... post a reply later
0
reply
dyingstudent101
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 week ago
#5
You’ve given feedback to me but idk much about this topic so I don’t think I could help in return

Sorry lol
0
reply
milkshakelover
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 week ago
#6
1. proof read.
2. if the question is about judges, why have you jumped straight to SC judges; if you're talking about just SC judges you need to show an awareness that other types of judge exists
3. need to evaluate each argument you make; your analysis is fine albeit a tad repetitive but evaluation is lacking
0
reply
J Papi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 week ago
#7
Comments in bold
(Original post by Kali.kb)
If you've seen me around the LNAT 2020 thread then you'll know that this is my second time doing the LNAT and I can give decent advice but I just still need some form of feedback to improve and smash the essay as me reading it myself isn't the most reliable thing as I may end up being biased.

LNAT ESSAY
”How should judges be appointed?”
(Started at 9:26) (Finished at 10:04) (not proof read)
It's really important that you allocate 2 mins for proofreading - one skim can make a lot of difference

For one to argue around the debate of the appointment process of the Supreme Court judges, it is imperative to understand the role of the Supreme Court judges. Supreme Court judges are put in place to safeguard the constitution and uphold the rights of the people. However, it can be said that due to the nature of the role of the Supreme Court judges that it is key that Supreme Court judges are appointed by the people. This essay will explore the compelling arguments against this ideology to prove that the idea of the Supreme Court judges being appointed by the people is extremely whimsical and lacks sustainability when put in practice, potentially endangering citizens than protecting their rights.
Why are you only talking about the SC? Granted, it doesn't make much of a difference in this particular context, but be careful to follow the question every time

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, meaning that the Supreme Court judges need to be appointed by someone qualified and trusted enough to ensure that the role is filled by someone who is fit for purpose and can ensure that they have the best interests of the people at heart. The Judicial Appointments Committee are the clear fit for the role of appointing judges as the are more likely to be specialists in the area and know exactly what they’re looking for. To put it quite simply, the public aren't qualified enough in order to appoint a Supreme Court judge. There will be a large variety of the public who don’t know much about the role, whilst there will be others who have no regard for the law. Humans are lead by emotion, leading to irrational decisions which could then result in the wrong person being appointed, or the public potentially changing their mind on their choice of judge and turning on them at a later stage. This has been constantly repeated throughout the history of politics, where the public will vote in a party via the majority vote, only to turn on them later due to changes in political stance or dissatisfaction of their service. This simply proves that it’s better to leave the job of appointing the Supreme Court judges to the Judicial Appointments Committee as they have been trained to do their role and are less likely to decide based on emotion.
This could have been shorter - it feels like you are stating the same point in different ways. It's a valid point, and it could have been developed further - e.g. is there a risk of a fluctuating interpretation of the same primary material? Why would this be undesirable?

It is understandable that many people would argue that due to the fact that they pay taxes which help our legal system, they should be able to appoint judges to court via a public ballot – similar to that of a general election which allows the judges to be directly accountable for any wrong decisions. However, it is key that the judges are appointed based on competency rather than ideology and that they are free from politicization in order to operate without bias. This means that having judges being appointed via public ballot would leave many judges vulnerable to being forced to use popularity to be able to get their job, potentially resulting in the issue of being bribed by pressure groups on the far right with promises of campaign funding and a guaranteed vote if they simply shared their same ideals and uphold those as a judge. This can easily be seen within the USA where the Supreme Court judges are split by ideology rather than competency which has allowed some very extreme laws to be passed, such as the ban on transgender people in the army and the challenges around gun laws simply because they are directly nominated through a system that is extremely politicized. How are we expected to believe that our rights will be protected if the system allows people with extreme ideas to be Supreme Court judges? The clear answer is that we aren’t and that’s why the system of appointing judges should be left as it is and in the hands of the Judicial Appointments Committee, the system hasn’t produced a fascist judge and guarantees that they aren’t politicised.
A few assumptions here - would politically-appointed judges be more likely to make value/policy judgments? Would they continue to do so covertly, or would they turn certain judgments into open political and moral battles?

There's something called 'taking an argument at its strongest', and you're not doing that - you're jumping to extreme cases (Citizens United etc), and you're assuming that all of these judgments are brought about because of 'bad actors' (pressure groups etc.)

A more nuanced consideration of the opposing arguments would consider the fact that certain ways of e.g. interpreting the US Constitution just happen to align with certain political views (e.g. literalism tends to align with conservativism), meaning that judges would be 'biased' (in favour of their favourite doctrine) even before they got elected. After all, the reason why they got elected was because of their existing legal/doctrinal beliefs! Can we ever ban people who have informed, academic views on e.g. statutory interpretation, or on what the law of X should be?


In summary, it can simply be said that despite debates supporting the Supreme Court judges being appointed via the public, the idea simply doesn’t take into account issues surrounding human nature, the line between competency and ideology and the risk of the process of appointment being politicised. Clearly proving that the role of appointing judges should continue to be left with the Judicial Appointments Committee. To quote political theorist, Thomas Hobbes “humans are weak and selfish” and if left to our own devices “it will end in war.” We lead with our instinct and selfish desires with very rare thoughts spared on the consequences of our actions. As a result, we are unable to be the deciding factor in a role that surrounds the safeguarding of the constitution and our rights and the job should continue to be left to those who are fully qualified for the role.

Hobbes quote is artificial and adds nothing. It's also quoted out of context. Don't feel the pressure to bring in material that doesn't fit.

The 'qualification' point is one that you never make explicitly. That's a shame. There's a valid argument to be made that the variety of experience held by politically-appointed judges increases the likelihood of some of them being, say, academics or solicitors instead of practising barristers. This is actually a good thing because it imparts common sense and technical knowledge of e.g. a particular area of commerce or technology. It also improves the diversity of the Bench - local people will tend to vote for people like them, not a Southern, predominantly white, privately-educated elite. So it's okay to have Bob Jones from ****hole LLP in Bolton as a junior judge because his practice taught him things that the average posh commercial QC in London doesn't know. But then again the commercial QC has probably dealt with a wider range of cases than Bob, is intimately familiar with court procedure, is probably brighter and a better technical lawyer. Also, the JAC seems to be happy to appoint people from a range of backgrounds within the legal profession, so one could argue that the current (non-political system) can accommodate for a wider conception of what 'talent' looks like without becoming a fully political body (see the appointments of Hale, Burrows, as well as the appointments to e.g. the TCC).

The point is that you need to know when something is worthy of discussion and to actually develop on it and discuss both sides. I did this in the paragraph above. You're taking the word count you should have allocated towards that and wasting it on repetition!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • University of Surrey
    Postgraduate Open Afternoon Postgraduate
    Wed, 23 Oct '19
  • University of Bristol
    Undergraduate Open Afternoon Undergraduate
    Wed, 23 Oct '19
  • University of Exeter
    Undergraduate Open Day - Penryn Campus Undergraduate
    Wed, 23 Oct '19

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (38)
26.03%
No (108)
73.97%

Watched Threads

View All