Judicial appointment helps produce a higher caliber of independent judges

Judicial appointment of Supreme Court justices is the most effective system for judicial selection because it helps produce a Supreme Court with a highly qualified, independent justice profile. It avoids the risk of unsuited people serving as justices from judicial elections. Under the appointment model, a nominating commission is responsible for selecting candidates for judgeships. The commission investigates and interviews potential nominees to determine the candidates’ eligibility. It submits names to the appointive body (usually the governor or the president) to make the final decision. Nominating commissions operate according to specific guidelines. These guidelines establish the necessary qualifications for potential candidates. Members of the commission include lawyers in private and government practice, prominent members of bar associations, current judges, and academics. Therefore, the appointment model minimizes the role of politics and maximizes justice quality.^[1] Citizens may not have enough information about which judge has a better profile. Therefore, justices who spend more money on a campaign can get elected even though their qualifications are insufficient for the justice position. Justices with distinct political views can also be elected if they pursue a successful campaign. Such a situation would threaten the independence of the judiciary.^[2] For example, Roy Moore was twice elected to the Alabama Supreme Court and twice removed from the office because of his politically and religiously motivated rulings. Moore refused to recognize federal court orders regarding marriage equality because he believed that religious laws superseded the Constitution.^[3] Overall, citizens cannot always elect the best quality judges since colorful advertisements, and campaign finance may influence their decisions. Judicial appointment avoids such situation.