Question

In the United States, we often think of courts and of judges as the impartial and final arbiters of legal disputes. Do you think this view is accurate? Why or why not? and Assuming this view is accurate, do you think this model is the best we can achieve? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Yes, I agree that Judges in United States are impartial. They are appointed by the head of state. Head of the state can not appoint any random person. A personality with impartial and honest nature is being chosen for appointing as a judge.

Impartiality is the most important rule of law sector. In various jurisdictions of US, judges are appointed for life. They can not be removed by any executive. This assurance also acts an reinforcing element in implementation of impartiality and honesty.

Impartiality is being arise from Judicial independence. Judiciary must be independent from all the branches of the government. It should not be influenced from any person or from any perspective. In US this independence is tried to be ensured.

We should also consider that Judges are also humans. Sometimes they may also make mistakes. A well developed system is present in country which acts as a model for many other countries of the world.

I think political election of judges should be stopped. In place of election. there can be a system of competitive exam. Exam can be taken by retired judges with image of extreme honesty.

Exam can ensure the appointment of supreme quality candidates. Hardness and competitive nature will engrave the more honesty in judges.