Engage your group members in a discussion of the following q

Engage your group members in a discussion of the following questions:

What are the pros and cons of having an unelected judiciary whose members serve a lifetime term? Would judicial review work better, worse, or about the same, if Supreme Court Justices served a 15-year term instead of a lifetime term. write and post a 2- to 3-paragraph response to the discussion prompt. Be sure to address all aspects of the prompt and back up your claims with evidence and reasoning.

Solution

Pros of having unelected judiciary members:-

i) accountability will be checked towards the work.

ii) they will not interpret the public opinion wrongly, over the laws.

iii) there will be no issue of inclination towards majority.

iv) there will be no programs for election of judges.

v) there will be no situation of choosing best judges.

vi) impartiality in selecting judges.

Cons of having unelected judges:-

i) they have to be more accountable.

ii) they will not go or listen to the public opinion.

iii) no, tranparancy in the cases or process.

iv) there will be no ensuring ,that the judges will uphold the rule of law.

v) corruptions would be elevated.

vi) there will be less regulations on the work of unelected judges.

If Supreme Court justices served a 15 year term instead of a lifetime term then, it would definitely work better comparatively as before, because supreme court has got the power over the other member of judiciaries. 8 year is enough to serve and work and should limit to some extent, but could be lifetime term. So if they work for long public will be benefited more and get the justice.