Can you give feedback on my LNAT essay?Watch
”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
More law resources on TSR
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?
Thank you for the concern though!
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